Feature analysis in computer-based reasoning models

ABSTRACT

Techniques are provided herein for creating well-balanced computer-based reasoning systems and using those to control systems. The techniques include receiving a request to determine whether to use one or more particular features, cases, etc. in a computer-based reasoning model (e.g., as cases or features are being added, or as part of pruning existing features or cases). Conviction measures (such as targeted or untargeted conviction, contribution, surprisal, etc.) are determined and inclusivity conditions are tested. The result of comparing the conviction measure can be used to determine whether to include or exclude the feature, case, etc. in the computer-based reasoning model. A controllable system may then be controlled using the computer-based reasoning model. Examples controllable systems include self-driving cars, image labeling systems, manufacturing and assembly controls, federated systems, smart voice controls, automated control of experiments, energy transfer systems, and the like.

BENEFIT CLAIM

This patent application is a continuation of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 16/220,986, filed Dec. 14, 2018, entitled “IMPROVEMENTS TOCOMPUTER BASED REASONING AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS”, which isa continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/948,805,filed Apr. 9, 2018, entitled “IMPROVEMENTS TO COMPUTER BASED REASONINGAND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS”, the entire contents of which arehereby incorporated by reference in their entirety for all purposes.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to computer-based optimization andartificial intelligence techniques and in particular to improvingcomputer-based reasoning systems, which can be used to cause control ofcontrollable systems, such as self-driving cars.

BACKGROUND

One of the hardest parts of using computer-based reasoning systems issimultaneously obtaining sufficient breadth of training data whilereducing model size, as those two goals are often at odds. Dataelements, possibly including context data paired with action data (e.g.,a set of one or more contexts and/or a set of one or more actions),which may include ‘cases’ or ‘instances’ in the case of case-basedreasoning, can be collected for many points in time and for manydecisions made and actions taken in many contexts. For example, if atrainer is driving a vehicle to train a self-driving vehicle,context-action pairs may be collected every second or even multipletimes a second, and those context-action pairs may represent, forexample, driving actions taken (e.g., change lanes, turn, etc.) inparticular contexts (e.g., vehicle speed, weight, location, proximity toother objects, etc.). Further, sets of context-action pairs may becollected multiple times per trainer (e.g., a single trainer driving avehicle multiple times) and there may be many trainers (e.g., differentdrivers contributing training data). In total, the training dataelements may number in the millions, billions, or even higher. This, inturn, increases the size of the computer-based reasoning model. While alarger computer-based reasoning model is useful for coverage, the largerthe model is, the more computing resources are used to control a systemwith the model. So, although good breadth in the model is useful, theincreasing size of the computer-based reasoning model can be a detrimentin terms of computational and memory resources needed. Further, acomputer-based reasoning model may have more features (e.g., dataelements used in the context of a context-action pair) than necessary orefficient and may not use proper parameters (e.g., feature weights,etc.). Each of these issues can cause inefficiencies in the model andits use.

The techniques herein address these issues by using entropy-basedtechniques to balance the need for smaller computer-based reasoningmodels with the usefulness of broad coverage.

The approaches described in this section are approaches that could bepursued, but not necessarily approaches that have been previouslyconceived or pursued. Therefore, unless otherwise indicated, it shouldnot be assumed that any of the approaches described in this sectionqualify as prior art merely by virtue of their inclusion in thissection.

SUMMARY

The claims may serve as a summary of the invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

In the drawings:

FIG. 1 depicts a process for creation of well-balanced computer-basedreasoning systems.

FIG. 2 depicts a block diagram of a system for creation of well-balancedcomputer-based reasoning systems.

FIG. 3 depicts additional example systems and hardware for creation ofwell-balanced computer-based reasoning systems.

FIG. 4 depicts an example process for controlling a system.

FIG. 5, FIG. 6, and FIG. 7 depict additional example processes forcreation of well-balanced computer-based reasoning systems.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

In the following description, for the purposes of explanation, numerousspecific details are set forth in order to provide a thoroughunderstanding of the present invention. It will be apparent, however,that the present invention may be practiced without these specificdetails. In other instances, well-known structures and devices are shownin block diagram form in order to avoid unnecessarily obscuring thepresent invention.

General Overview

As noted above, one of the hardest parts of using computer-basedreasoning systems is simultaneously obtaining sufficient breadth oftraining data while reducing model size, as those two goals are often atodds. The need for broad coverage pushes the size of sets of dataelements higher. Stated another way, a training set needs to have goodcoverage in order for it to be useful later in a computer-basedreasoning system. As such, trainers need to cover a wide range ofcontexts in order to ensure that the needed coverage is obtained.Collecting data for this broad coverage causes the size of the sets ofdata elements to increase.

Having such large amounts of data can be useful for providing choice ofactions to take in many contexts, but it has downsides. Large sets ofdata elements take significant memory to store and incur significantprocessing costs when later finding matching context-action pairs. Assuch, it is important to do one or both of: 1) reducing the number ofdata elements during or after collection and 2) directing training sothat when a contextual area is already well covered, training can bedirected to areas where training data will provide a greater differencein the amount of information contained in the model or set of dataelements.

Techniques herein address these issues, including obtaining broadcoverage while still controlling the size of the set of data elementsfor a computer-based reasoning model while still providing broadcoverage in the model.

Various embodiments herein look at the amount of new information thateach data element provides to the overall set of data elements in orderto determine whether to include (or keep) that data element. In someways, looking at the information contributed may be considered lookingat whether the new data is “useful” to the new set of data elements, orwhether the new data is “surprising” or informative based on the set ofdata elements. Various embodiments herein use a measure of informationentropy to determine the additional surprisal (or surprise) that a datapoint provides to a set of data. Information entropy is the expectedvalue of surprisal. Example measures of surprisal are describedelsewhere herein.

Information gain can be applied across the spectrum of machine learningapplications for computer-based reasoning models including “supervisedlearning” and “unsupervised learning”. In supervised learning, acomputer-based reasoning model may contain a number of training caseswith a set of inputs, sometimes called a feature vector or context, anda set of outputs, sometimes called labels, decisions, or actions. Thefeature vectors are the inputs observed and the labels are thepresumably correct decisions for the given inputs as given by thetrainer. In many implementations, the feature vectors and labels areeach comprised of a set of numbers, but in other implementations, thefeature vector and labels may each include enumerations, alphanumericstrings, or other data. In unsupervised learning, a computer-basedreasoning model contains no outputs, labels, or actions in the trainingcases, and it is up to the machine learning system and the model todetermine how to label the cases. However, a model, available trainingdata, and other experimental, live, validated, unvalidated, test, orother available data may contain a combination of labeled and unlabeleddata, as well as data that contains different feature vectors anddifferent kinds of actions or labels. As long as some function isdefined that can relate two particular cases that may include featurevectors or labels, all of the techniques herein may be applied to anyset of feature vectors and labels for supervised or unsupervisedlearning.

The use of information entropy can be used to help reduce the number ofdata elements in a set after it has been collected, while maintainingmost of the overall breadth or usefulness that set of data elements. Forexample, a set of data elements related to vehicle operation (e.g., frommultiple training runs by multiple trainers) can be large andcumbersome. Some embodiments herein calculate the conviction (a ratio ofexpected surprisal to surprisal), contribution (a conditioned ratio ofexpected surprisal to surprisal), expected surprisal, or informationgain, of each of the data elements in the set of data elements andremove those that contribute little to the overall informational valueof the set of data (e.g., those with low surprisal). Some embodimentscalculate the information gain of each data element in the set of dataelements and only keep those with the highest surprisal (e.g., the top Nsurprisal data elements and/or those with an information gain value overa certain threshold). Some embodiments may calculate the informationgain of each data element in the set of data elements and only keepthose with the lowest surprisal, identifying and reporting those withthe highest surprisal as anomalous results.

As noted above, surprisal and other conviction measures, can be used toreduce the size of sets of data elements as they are collected, whilecontrolling the total size of the set of data elements. As used herein,the term conviction measure encompasses, but is not necessarily limitedto surprisal, prediction conviction, feature prediction contribution,and familiarity conviction, each of which may be determined in atargeted or untargeted manner. Each of these conviction measures isdescribed in detail herein. In some embodiments, training data collectedduring training runs is analyzed in real time or near real time and isonly stored to a set of data elements if it adds significantly to theinformation for that set of data elements. The surprisal of each dataelement may be determined, and when the surprisal is above a certain(lower limit) threshold (or “within bounds” of that lower limitthreshold), it may be added to the set of training data. For example,using the self-driving car example, a data element related to drivingstraight on a highway at a constant speed might have a low surprisalvalue due to plentiful relevant training data, and therefore not beadded to the set of data elements. Data elements related to driving intraffic in the rain, however, may have high surprisal value due to lessrelevant training data, and therefore be added to the set of dataelements. Also discussed herein are other ways to use various measuresof conviction to decide whether to keep or exclude features and/or casesin a computer-based reasoning model.

Determination of various conviction measures, such as familiarityconviction and prediction conviction, is discussed below. Familiarityconviction is sometimes called simply “conviction” herein. Predictionconviction is also sometimes referred to as simply “conviction” herein.In each instance where conviction is used as the term herein, any of theconviction measures may be used. Further, when familiarity conviction orprediction conviction terms are used, those measure are appropriate, asmay be the other conviction measures discussed herein.

In some embodiments, surprisal and/or prediction or familiarityconviction or other conviction measures are used to help directtraining. Data elements with high surprisal are flagged and trainers maybe directed to train more around those areas. Trainers may also besignaled when surprisal is low, indicating that more training is notneeded in that area. As training is occurring, the contribution of newdata elements can be calculated in real time or near real time, and ifthe surprisal value is high (e.g., above a certain lower limitthreshold), the trainer may be notified that additional training data inthis context may be needed. If the surprisal is low, then the driver maybe signaled that the current context is not providing much information,indicating that the trainer should move on to a different context or todemonstrate any unusual actions that may result from similar contexts.For example, using the self-driving car example, if training in acurrent context (e.g., driving at a constant speed on a highway) doesnot provide much additional information to the set of data elements(e.g., the new data elements have low surprisal), the driver may begiven information that the current context is not providing muchinformation and a different context (e.g., side street driving isneeded). If the data elements in the current context are providing muchadditional information (e.g., have high surprisal), the trainer may besignaled to continue to provide training data in this context. Forexample, if, in a set of data elements related to vehicle operationthere is only a single data element related to traversing a railroadtrack, that data element may have a very high surprisal value and maytherefore be flagged so that trainers may know to provide more trainingdata related to railroad tracks.

When errors or anomalies are detected in a set of data elements, the“offending” data element(s) may be removed and or corrected. This can beespecially important when the data element had low surprisal or highconviction (which may be interpreted as a high confidence answer). Assuch, in some embodiments, when there are errors or anomalies detectedwith data elements that have low surprisal, those elements may beremoved and/or more elements may be added related to the offending dataelement. An anomalous case with high surprisal may also be removed upondetection. When a data element with high surprisal produces an anomalousresult, it is less extraordinary than when a data element with lowsurprisal produces an anomalous result. Nevertheless, taking correctiveaction when a data element with high surprisal produces an anomalousresult may also benefit the model.

Because information gain measures the surprisal of one distribution toanother, information gain can be used to assist in the process offeature selection. Other conviction measures, such as feature predictioncontribution or conviction measures can also be used for featureselection. Feature selection is the process of determining whichfeatures, contexts, data values, etc. should be considered in order toarrive at an appropriate label or decision. Feature selection is animportant problem in machine learning and data science because too manyfeatures or presence of irrelevant features can result in problemsincluding slower training, increased memory usage, decrease accuracy,and decreased performance, but often it is hard to know which featuresare important. The information gain may be computed for each featurefrom the associated probability density function of the model without afeature relative to the model with the feature. By assessing theinformation gain of each feature, features with the least informationgain can be removed with the least negative impact to the performance ofthe model because they have the least effect on the structure of thedata set and the results returned. Conversely, features with the highestinformation gain can be evaluated to see if they are improving ordiminishing accuracy by comparing the results of the model with andwithout those high entropy features.

In some embodiments, conviction, contribution, and/or other informationgain measures can be used to tune parameters to a computer-basedreasoning system. Parameters may include proximity, similarity,topology, feature weights, data transformations, function selection,etc. Given a base configuration of model parameters, other parameterchoices or combinations of choices may be evaluated with regard toinformation gain relative to the base configuration (e.g., bycalculating a PDMF using each candidate configuration). Thoseparameterizations with higher information gain will expose morecomplexity of the domain of the feature vector. This configuration withhigher information gain may yield better performance, and it mayindicate or reveal problems with the features or the selection offeatures.

In some embodiments, information gain can be used to compare twodifferent training models to determine which model has more or lesspredictable complex behavior relative to the other one.

Information gain measures can be computed as a rate based on newtraining data that is being put into the computer-based reasoning model.As the model becomes more trained in the domain, the information gain ofnew training data is expected to drop, and each new piece of trainingdata will yield less. However, an increased rate of information gainmeans that the model is learning new things; a significant or sustainedhigh rate of information gain may be used to trigger a modeloptimization to remove data that may now be less informative.

In some embodiments, as described elsewhere herein, relative surprisalis calculated usinglog₂(P/Q),where P is the posterior probability of an event occurring after it hasoccurred divided by the prior probability, Q, of that same eventoccurring before it has occurred.

In some embodiments, different measures that are correlated with,related to, or share similar characteristics of information entropy maybe used. Although the accuracy, performance, precision, domains, andranges may be applicable or invalid in different circumstances, otherfunctions may include variance, Gini coefficient, mean absolutedifference, median absolute deviation, variance-to-mean ratio, otherdispersion methods, and other techniques for finding differences betweenprobability density or probability mass functions.

In some embodiments, the surprisal is calculated from the probabilitydensity or mass functions (PDMFs) on the hypervolumes of the contextsrepresented by the multidimensional space of the set of data elementsand performing analytical or numerical methods of Bayesian inferencesusing the PDMFs. Further, the embodiments may use appropriate PDMFestimation techniques on the data elements, such as multivariate normal,gaussian, Laplace, radial quadratic, logistic, sigmoid, cosine,tricubic, quartic, parabolic, maximal entropy, other parametric ornonparametric distributions, or different kernel density estimation orapproximation techniques for each data element or subset of dataelements in the set of data elements before the data element or dataelements are added (Q) and then again after they are added (P).

In some embodiments, the surprisal of a data element with respect to aset of data elements can be calculated based on the probability thateach element will be within the kth nearest elements to a given point,where the probability of being among the kth nearest elements iscalculated using a set of distance measures on a generalized spanningtree that represents the topology of the set of data elements based ontheir k nearest neighbors. The surprisal of a data element with respectto a set of data elements may be calculated using three probabilitydensity or mass functions. For example, consider the three PDMFs (inthis case probability mass functions):P(i)=DistContrib(particular data element i)/ΣDistContrib(each particulardata element in the set of data elements)Qknown(i)=DistContrib(particular data element i)/ΣDistContrib(eachparticular data element in the set of data elements & expected value ofelements previously unknown),Qunknown(i)=Average(DistContrib(each data element in the set of dataelements))/ΣDistContrib(each particular data element & set of dataelements),and if each data element is weighted identically, Q_(unknown) may be1/N, where N is the number of data elements. Q_(known) refers to dataelements that were known prior to their inclusion in P, and Q_(known)refers to the data elements that were unknown and assumed as expectationprior to their inclusion in P. The shorthand (or function)DistContrib(X) may be a measure, premetric, or other function of thenearest neighbors to X. An example calculation is:DistContrib(X)=ΣC _(i) Distance(nearest neighbors),where C_(i) is a coefficient and nearest_neighbor_(i) is the i^(th)nearest neighbor of data element X, and i=1 . . . N for a DistContribcalculation of the N nearest neighbors.

The nearest neighbors and the distance calculation may be determinedusing any appropriate distance measurement or other premetric, includingEuclidean distance, Minkowski distance, Damerau-Levenshtein distance,Kullback-Leibler divergence, 1−Kronecker delta, and/or any otherdistance measure, metric, pseudometric, premetric, index, and the like.The list of coefficients may be any appropriate list, such as adecreasing series including the harmonic series (1/i) and other serieslike (1/(i+1)), (N−i+1), (N²−i²+1), (1/i²), etc., a constant number(e.g., C_(i)=1), an increasing series (e.g., C_(i)=i), or anon-monotonic series (e.g., C_(i)=sin(i*pi/7)).

The techniques discussed herein, in some embodiments, can be used tocompare two or more models or parts of two or more models. Thiscomparison can be useful for summarizing differences between the modelsand for determining whether models are good candidates for combiningand/or using evolutionary programming techniques. Further, thetechniques herein are useful to case-based reasoning systems (one typeof computer-based reasoning), but are also useful for data and modelreduction for machine learning and artificial intelligence systems (alsotypes of computer-based reasoning systems). For those system, trainingdata can become excessive, and training and retraining the neuralnetwork can be time and computationally intensive. Reducing the size ofthe training sets can be beneficial for reducing training data (amongother benefits) while minimizing the loss of information in thetraining.

Overview of Surprisal, Entropy, and Divergence

Below is a brief summary of some concepts discussed herein. It will beappreciated that there are numerous ways to compute the concepts below,and that other, similar mathematical concepts can be used with thetechniques discussed herein.

Entropy (“H(x)”) is a measure of the average expected value ofinformation from an event and is often calculated as the sum overobservations of the probability of each observation multiple by thenegative log of the probability of the observation.H(x)=−Σ_(i) p(x _(i))*log p(x _(i))

Entropy is generally considered a measure of disorder. Therefore, highervalues of entropy represent less regularly ordered information, withrandom noise having high entropy, and lower values of entropy representmore ordered information, with a long sequence of zeros having lowentropy. If log₂ is used, then entropy may be seen as representing thetheoretical lower bound on the number of bits needed to represent theinformation in a set of observations. Entropy can also be seen as howmuch a new observation distorts a combined probability density or massfunction of the observed space. Consider, for example, a universe ofobservations where there is a certain probability that each of A, B, orC occurs, and a probability that something other than A, B, or C occurs.

Surprisal (“I(x)”) is a measure of how much information is provided by anew event x_(i).I(x _(i))=−log p(x _(i))

Surprisal is generally a measure of surprise (or new information)generated by an event. The smaller the probability of X_(i), the higherthe surprisal.

Kullback-Leibler Divergence (“KL divergence” or “Div_(KL)(x)”) is ameasure of difference in information between two sets of observation. Itis often represented asDiv_(KL)(x)=Σ_(i) p(x _(i))*(log p(x _(i))−log q(x _(i))),where p(x_(i)) is the probability of x_(i) after x_(i) has occurred, andq(x_(i)) is the probability of x_(i) before x_(i) has occurred.Familiarity Conviction Examples

Conviction and contribution measures may be used with the techniquesherein. In some embodiments, other conviction measures may be related invarious ways to surprisal, including other conviction measures beingrelated to the ratio of observed surprisal to expected surprisal.Various of the conviction measures are discussed herein, includingfamiliarity conviction discussed next.

In some embodiments, it may be useful to employ conviction as measure ofhow much information the point distorts the model. To do so, one maydefine a feature conviction measure, such as familiarity conviction,such that a point's weighted distance contribution affects other points'distance contribution and compared to the expected distance contributionof adding any new point.

Definition 1.

Given a point x∈X and the set K of its k nearest neighbors, a distancefunction d: R^(z)×Z→R, and a distance exponent a, the distancecontribution of x may be the harmonic mean

$\begin{matrix}{{\phi(x)} = {\left( {\frac{1}{K}{\sum\limits_{k \in K}^{\;}\;\frac{1}{{d\left( {x,k} \right)}^{\alpha}}}} \right)^{- 1}.}} & (3)\end{matrix}$

Definition 2.

Given a set of points X⊂R^(z) for every x⊂X and an integer 1≤k<|X| onemay define the distance contribution probability distribution, C of X tobe the set

$\begin{matrix}{C = \left\{ {\frac{\phi\left( x_{1} \right)}{\sum_{i = 1}^{n}\;{\phi\left( x_{i} \right)}},\frac{\phi\left( x_{2} \right)}{\sum_{i = 1}^{n}\;{\phi\left( x_{i} \right)}},\ldots\mspace{11mu},\frac{\phi\left( x_{n} \right)}{\sum_{i = 1}^{n}\;{\phi\left( x_{i} \right)}}} \right\}} & (4)\end{matrix}$for a function φ: X→R that returns the distance contribution.

Note that if φ(0)=∞, special consideration may be given to multipleidentical points, such as splitting the distance contribution amongthose points.

Remark 1.

C may be a valid probability distribution. In some embodiments, thisfact is used to compute the amount of information in C.

Definition 3.

The point probability of a point x_(i), i=1, 2, . . . , n may be

$\begin{matrix}{{l(i)} = \frac{\phi\left( x_{i} \right)}{\sum\limits_{i}^{\;}\;{\phi\left( x_{i} \right)}}} & (5)\end{matrix}$where the index i is assigned the probability of the indexed point'sdistance contribution. One may denote this random variable L.

Remark 2.

When points are selected uniformly at random, one may assume L isuniform when the distance probabilities have no trend or correlation.

Definition 4.

The conviction of a point x_(i)∈X may be

$\begin{matrix}{{\pi_{f}\left( x_{i} \right)} = \frac{\left. {{{\frac{1}{X}{\sum\limits_{i}^{\;}\;{{{\mathbb{K}\mathbb{L}}\left( L \right.}L}}} - \left\{ i \right\}}\bigcup{{\mathbb{E}}\;{l(i)}}} \right)}{\left. {{{{{\mathbb{K}\mathbb{L}}\left( L \right.}L} - \left\{ x_{i} \right\}}\bigcup{{\mathbb{E}}\;{l(i)}}} \right)}} & (6)\end{matrix}$where KL is the Kullback-Leibler divergence. In some embodiments, whenone assumes L is uniform, one may have that the expected probability

${{\mathbb{E}}\;{l(i)}} = {\frac{1}{n}.}$Prediction Conviction Examples

In some embodiments, it is useful to employ conviction as a proxy foraccuracy of a prediction. To do so, one may define another type ofconviction such that a point's weighted distance to other points is ofprimary importance and can be expressed as the information required todescribe the position of the point in question relative to existingpoints.

Definition 5.

Let ξ be the number of features in a model and n the number ofobservations. One may define the residual function of the training dataX:r:X→R ^(ξ)r(x)=J ₁(k,p),J ₂(k,p), . . . ,J _(ξ)(k,p)  (7)

Where J_(i) may be the residual of the model on feature i parameterizedby the hyperparameters k and p evaluated on points near x. In someembodiments, one may refer to the residual function evaluated on all ofthe model data as r_(M). in some embodiments, the feature residuals maybe calculated as mean absolute error or standard deviation.

In some embodiments, one can quantify the information needed to expressa distance contribution φ(x) by moving to a probability. In someembodiments, the exponential distribution may be selected to describethe distribution of residuals, as it may be the maximum entropydistribution constrained by the first moment. In some embodiments, adifferent distribution may be used for the residuals, such as theLaplace, lognormal distribution, Gaussian distribution, normaldistribution, etc.

The exponential distribution may be represented or expressed as:

$\begin{matrix}{\frac{1}{\lambda} = {{r(x)}}_{p}} & (8)\end{matrix}$

We can directly compare the distance contribution and p-normed magnitudeof the residual. This is because the distance contribution is a locallyweighted expected value of the distance from one point to its nearestneighbors, and the residual is an expected distance between a point andthe nearest neighbors that are part of the model. Given the entropymaximizing assumption of the exponential distribution of the distances,we can then determine the probability that a distance contribution isgreater than or equal to the magnitude of the residual ∥r(x)∥_(p) as:

$\begin{matrix}{{P\left( {{\varphi(x)} \geq {{r(x)}}_{p}} \right)} = {e^{{- \frac{1}{{{r{(x)}}}_{p}}} \cdot {\varphi{(x)}}}.}} & (9)\end{matrix}$

We then convert the probability to self-information as:I(x)=−ln P(φ(x)≥∥r(x)∥_(p)),  (10)which simplifies to:

$\begin{matrix}{{I(x)} = {\frac{\varphi(x)}{{{r(x)}}_{p}}.}} & (11)\end{matrix}$

As the distance contribution decreases, or as the residual vectormagnitude increases, the less information may be needed to representthis point. One can then compare this to the expected value a regularconviction form, yielding a prediction conviction of:

$\begin{matrix}{{\pi_{p} = \frac{EI}{I(x)}},} & (12)\end{matrix}$where I is the self-information calculated for each point in the model.Feature Prediction Contribution Examples

In some embodiments, another feature conviction measure, FeaturePrediction Contribution, may be related Mean Decrease in Accuracy (MDA).In MDA scores are established for models with all the features M andmodels with each feature held out M_(−f) _(i) , i=1 . . . ξ. Thedifference |M−M_(−f) _(i) | is the importance of each feature, where theresult's sign is altered depending on whether the goal is to maximize orminimize score.

In some embodiments, prediction information π_(c) is correlated withaccuracy and thus may be used as a surrogate. The expectedself-information required to express a feature is given by:

${{{EI}(M)} = {\frac{1}{\xi}{\sum\limits_{i}^{\xi}{I\left( x_{i} \right)}}}},$and the expected self-information to express a feature without feature iis

${{EI}\left( M_{- i} \right)} = {\frac{1}{\xi}{\sum\limits_{j = 0}^{\xi}{{I_{- i}\left( x_{j} \right)}.}}}$

One can now make two definitions:

Definition 6.

The prediction contribution π_(c) of feature i is

${\pi_{c}(i)} = {\frac{M - M_{- f_{i}}}{M}.}$

Definition 7.

The prediction conviction, pi_(p′) of feature i is

${\pi_{p}(i)} = {\frac{\frac{1}{\xi}{\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{\xi}M_{- f_{i}}}}{M_{- f_{i}}}.}$

In some embodiments, a set of action features or targets predicted withfeature(s) removed may be labeled and then appended to the model asadditional set of features. The prediction conviction or contributionmay be additionally measured by comparing the original value (e.g., theobserved target (j_(M))) with the full-model predicted target (j′_(M))and/or the predicted value given that feature i was removed (j′_(M-fi))and readded (j′_(M)) (in either direction). In some embodiments, theprediction conviction or contribution may be measured by comparing thefull-model predicted target (j′_(M)) with the predicted value given thatfeature i was removed (j′_(M-fi)) (in either direction). Thedirectionality of the comparison may be important when the measure beingused is not symmetric.

Synthetic Data Generation Examples

In some embodiments, prediction conviction may express how surprising anobservation is. As such, one may, effectively, reverse the math and useconviction to generate a new sample of data for a given amount ofsurprisal. In some embodiments, generally, the techniques may randomlyselect or predict a feature of a case from the training data and thenresample it.

Given that some embodiments include calculating conditioned localresiduals for a part of the model, as discussed elsewhere herein, thetechniques may use this value to parameterize the random numberdistribution to generate a new value for a given feature. In order tounderstand this resampling method, it may be useful to discuss theapproach used by the Mann-Whitney test, a powerful and widely usednonparametric test to determine whether two sets of samples were drawnfrom the same distribution. In the Mann-Whitney test, samples arerandomly checked against one another to see which is greater, and ifboth sets of samples were drawn from the same distribution then theexpectation is that both sets of samples should have an equal chance ofhaving a higher value when randomly chosen samples are compared againsteach other.

In some embodiments, the techniques herein include resampling a point byrandomly choosing whether the new sample is greater or less than theother point and then draw a sample from the distribution using thefeature's residual as the expected value. In some embodiments, using theexponential distribution yields the double-sided exponentialdistribution (also known as the Laplace distribution), though lognormaland other distributions may be used as well.

If a feature is not continuous but rather nominal, then the localresiduals can populate a confusion matrix, and an appropriate sample canbe drawn based on the probabilities for drawing a new sample given theprevious value.

As an example, the techniques may be used to generate a random value offeature i from the model with, for example, no other conditions on it.Because the observations within the model are representative of theobservations made so far, a random instance is chosen from theobservations using the uniform distribution over all observations. Thenthe value for feature i of this observation is resampled via the methodsdiscussed elsewhere herein.

As another example, the techniques may be used to generate feature j ofa data element or case, given that, in that data element or case,features i∈Ξ have corresponding values x_(i). The model labels feature jconditioned by all x_(i) to find some value t. This new value t becomesthe expected value for the resampling process described elsewhereherein, and the local residual (or confusion matrix) becomes theappropriate parameter or parameters for the expected deviation.

In some embodiments, the techniques include filling in the features foran instance by beginning with no feature values (or a subset of all thefeature values) specified as conditions for the data to generate. Theremaining features may be ordered randomly or may be ordered via afeature conviction value (or in any other manner described herein). Whena new value is generated for the current feature, then the processrestarts with the newly-set feature value as an additional condition onthat feature.

Parameterizing Synthetic Data Via Prediction Conviction Examples

As discussed elsewhere, various embodiments use the double-sidedexponential distribution as a maximum entropy distribution of distancein Lp space. One may then be able to derive a closed form solution forhow to scale the exponential distributions based on a predictionconviction value. For example, a value, v, for the prediction convictionmay be expressed as

$\begin{matrix}{v = {{\pi_{p}(x)} = \frac{EI}{I(x)}}} & (13)\end{matrix}$which may be rearranged as

$\begin{matrix}{{I(x)} = {\frac{EI}{v}.}} & (14)\end{matrix}$Substituting in the self-information described elsewhere herein:

$\begin{matrix}{\frac{\varphi(x)}{{{r(x)}}_{p}} = {\frac{EI}{v}.}} & (15)\end{matrix}$In some embodiments, that the units on both sides of Equation 15 match.This may be the case in circumstances where the natural logarithm andexponential in the derivation of Equation 15 cancel out, but leave theresultant in nats. We can rearrange in terms of distance contributionas:

$\begin{matrix}{{\varphi(x)} = {\frac{{{r(x)}}_{p} \cdot {EI}}{v}.}} & (16)\end{matrix}$If we let p=0, which may be desirable for conviction and other aspectsof the similarity measure, then we can rewrite the distance contributionin terms of its parameter, λ_(i), with expected mean of

$\frac{1}{\lambda_{i}}.$This becomes

$\begin{matrix}{{\Pi_{i}{E\left( {1/\lambda_{i}} \right)}} = {\frac{\Pi_{i}r_{i}{EI}}{v}.}} & \left. (17) \right)\end{matrix}$

In some embodiments, due to the number of ways surprisal may be assignedor calculated across the features, various solutions may exist. However,unless otherwise specified or conditioned, embodiments may includedistributing surprisal uniformly across the features, holding expectedproportionality constant. In some embodiments, the distance contributionmay become the mean absolute error for the exponential distribution,such as:

$\begin{matrix}{{E\left( {1/\lambda_{i}} \right)} = {r_{i}{\frac{EI}{v}.}}} & (18)\end{matrix}$and solving for the λ_(i) to parameterize the exponential distributionsmay result in:

$\begin{matrix}{\lambda_{i} = {\frac{v}{r_{i}{EI}}.}} & (19)\end{matrix}$In some embodiments, Equation 19, when combined with the value of thefeature, may become the distribution by which to generate a new randomnumber under the maximum entropy assumption of exponentially distributeddistance from the value.Reinforcement Learning Examples

In some embodiments, the techniques can generate data with a controlledamount of surprisal, which may be a novel way to characterize theclassic exploration versus exploitation trade off in searching for anoptimal solution to a goal. Traditionally, pairing a means to search,such as Monte Carlo tree search, with a universal function approximator,such as neural networks, may solve difficult reinforcement learningproblems without domain knowledge. Because the data synthesis techniquesdescribed herein utilize the universal function approximator model (kNN)itself, it enables the techniques to be use in a reinforcement learningarchitecture that is similar and tightly coupled, as described herein.

In some embodiments, setting the conviction of the data synthesis to “1”(or any other appropriate value) yields a balance between explorationand exploitation. Because, in some embodiments, the synthetic datageneration techniques described herein can also be conditioned, thetechniques may condition the search on both the current state of thesystem, as it is currently observed, and a set of goal values forfeatures. In some embodiments, as the system is being trained, it can becontinuously updated with the new training data. Once states areevaluated for their ultimate outcome, a new set of features or featurevalues can be added to all of the observations indicating the finalscores or measures of outcomes (as described elsewhere herein, e.g., inrelation to outcome features). Keeping track of which observationsbelong to which training sessions (e.g., games) may be beneficial as aconvenient way to track and update this data. In some embodiments, giventhat the final score or multiple goal metrics may already be in the kNNdatabase, the synthetic data generation may allow querying for new dataconditioned upon having a high score or winning conditions (or any otherappropriate condition), with a specified amount of conviction.

In some embodiments, the techniques herein provide a reinforcementlearning algorithm that can be queried for the relevant training datafor every decision, as described elsewhere herein. The commonality amongthe similar cases, boundary cases, archetypes, etc. can be combined tofind when certain decisions are likely to yield a positive outcome,negative outcome, or a larger amount of surprisal thus improving thequality of the model. In some embodiments, by seeking high surprisalmoves, the system will improve the breadth of its observations.

Targeted and Untargeted Techniques for Determining Conviction and OtherMeasures

In some embodiments, any of the feature conviction measures (e.g.,surprisal, prediction conviction, familiarity conviction, and/or featureprediction contribution and/or feature prediction conviction) may bedetermined using an “untargeted” and/or a “targeted” approach. In theuntargeted approach, the measure (e.g., a conviction measure) isdetermined by holding out the item in question and then measuringinformation gain associated with putting the item back into the model.Various examples of this are discussed herein. For example, to measurethe untargeted conviction of a case (or feature), the conviction ismeasured in part based on taking the case (or feature) out of the model,and then measuring the information associated with adding the case (orfeature) back into the model.

In order to determine a targeted measure, such as surprisal, conviction,or contribution of a data element (which may be, e.g., a case or afeature), in contrast to untargeted measures, everything is dropped fromthe model except the features or cases being analyzed (the “analyzeddata element(s)”) and the target features or cases (“target dataelement(s)”). Then the measure is calculated by measure the conviction,information gain, contribution, etc. based on how well the analyzed dataelement(s) predict the target data element(s) in the absence of the restof the model.

In each instance that a measure, such as a surprisal, conviction,contribution, etc. measure, is discussed herein, the measure may bedetermined using either a targeted approach or an untargeted approach.For example, when the term “conviction” is used, it may refer totargeted or untargeted prediction conviction, targeted or untargetedfamiliarity conviction, and/or targeted or untargeted feature predictionconviction. Similarly, when surprisal, information, and/or contributionmeasures are discussed without reference to either targeted oruntargeted calculation techniques, then reference may be being made toeither a targeted or untargeted calculation for the measure.

Example Processes for Entropy-Based Techniques for Creation ofWell-Balanced Computer Based Reasoning Systems

FIG. 1 depicts a process for using entropy-based techniques for creationof well-balanced computer-based reasoning system. As an overview, in theprocess 100 of FIG. 1, a request is received 110 to determine whether toinclude a particular data element (or one or more data elements) in thecomputer-based reasoning model. The receipt 110 of this request could bepart of reduction (in size, memory used, etc.) of an existingcomputer-based reasoning model, adding training data to a model, and thelike. After receiving the request on whether to include the data elementor elements in the computer-based reasoning model, the process willdetermine 120 and 130 two PDMFs, one for the set of data elementsassociated with the computer-based reasoning model without the one ormore particular data elements calculating expected values for futuredata elements, and one for the full set of data elements, including theone or more particular data elements. The surprisal is then determined140 based on the two PDMFs, and a decision is made whether to include150 the one or more particular data elements in the computer-basedreasoning model based on the surprisal. The process 100 may optionallybe repeated for multiple data elements or groups of data elements(indicated by the dashed line in FIG. 1). Once the data element(s) areincluded or excluded from the computer-based reasoning model, areal-world system may be controlled 160 with the computer-basedreasoning model (such as an autonomous vehicle, an image labelingsystem, etc.).

Returning to the top of FIG. 1, the process receives 110 a request todetermine whether to include particular data in a computer-basedreasoning model. The request may be received 110 using any appropriatecommunication mechanism, such as HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, FTPS, an API call, aremote procedure call, a function or procedure call, The received 110request may be a request to reduce the size of a computer-basedreasoning model. For example, a system or device (not depicted in FIG.2), may request the reduction in model size for a computer-basedreasoning model to the training and analysis system 210. In otherembodiments, the training and analysis system 210 may initiate the modelreduction request on its own (e.g., when a model reaches a certainthreshold or at a fixed interval). In some embodiments, the requestreceived 110 can be to reduce the model to a particular size, by acertain amount, or based on the informational value of the elements ofthe model (described more herein). As described herein, reducing thesize of the computer-based reasoning model while maintaining most of theinformational value of the model is beneficial. The model being culledcould be any appropriate model, including computer-based reasoningmodels for self-driving vehicles, labelling images, decisions on claims(e.g., how to fund a claim based on the factors of the case), and thelike.

In some embodiments, the request to determine whether to include the oneor more particular data elements in a computer-based reasoning model isreceived 110 as part of training. For example, if the training isongoing, the request received 110 may be a request to determine whetherto add a newly-received data element to the computer-based reasoningmodel. As a particular vehicular example, if Alicia is training aself-driving car computer-based reasoning system, and data(context-action pairs) is being collected for that drive (perhaps inreal time, perhaps after the fact, but before the data is added to themodel), then process 100 may be used to determine whether each elementof data for Alicia's training data should be added to the computer-basedreasoning model. Determining whether to add the elements before they areadded to the computer-based reasoning model will allow the model tomaintain a smaller size (by not adding elements that do not providesufficient informational value), while still adding those elements thatdo provide informational value. As discussed herein, having a smallermodel with high informational content is beneficial.

A first PDMF is determined 120 for the set of data elements thatexcludes the one or more particular data elements, and a second PDMF isdetermined 130 for the set of data elements that includes the one ormore particular data elements. In some embodiments, as discussed herein,the determination of whether to include data in a computer-basedreasoning model is made as part of a model reduction. In suchembodiments, a PDMF is determined 130 for the model as it currentlystands (e.g., with the data element in question) and another isdetermined 120 for the computer-based reasoning model excluding the dataelement. For example, if a determination is being made whether one ormore particular data elements (e.g., a context-action pair) should beincluded/remain in the computer-based reasoning model, then a PDMF forthe computer-based reasoning model with the data element will bedetermined as well one without that data element using placeholderexpected values for the data. These two PDMFs will be used to determinewhether to keep the data element in the computer-based reasoning model.In some embodiments, the second PDMF may be calculated based on treatingthe model as an ‘empty model’ where the probability of every dataelement is the interpreted as the same or “even”, instead of usingexisting data element probability densities.

In some embodiments, the determination of whether to include one or moreparticular data elements in a computer-based reasoning model happensbefore data is added to the computer-based reasoning model. When thedetermination is being made whether to add a data element to acomputer-based reasoning model, a PDMF is determined for the model as itstands (e.g., without the one or more particular data elements, using anexpected value instead) and another is determined for the model with thedata element added. These two PDMFs will be used to determine whether toadd the data element to the computer-based reasoning model.

The calculation of a PDMF is discussed elsewhere herein in detail. Insome embodiments, determining 120 and/or 130 a PDMF includes using amultivariate Laplace distribution, a multivariate Gaussian distribution,numerical methods of Bayesian inference, or other kernel methods.

In some embodiments, determining 120 and/or 130 a PDMF includesdetermining multiple nearest data elements from the set of data elementsin the computer-based reasoning model for the one or more particulardata elements, and the distance contribution for each. A combineddistance measure is then determined for the one or more particular dataelements based on the distance measures for the nearest-neighborelements' distances (as described elsewhere, these can be equallyweighted, harmonically weighted, etc.), and the PDMF can be determinedbased at least in part on the combined distance measure.

Surprisal is determined 140 based on the first and second PDMFs. Forexample, in some embodiments, the surprisal of the one or moreparticular data elements is the ratio of the first and second PDMFs.Determination of surprisal is discussed extensively herein. As noted, insome embodiments, the surprisal is a calculation of P/Q. Otherembodiments include different calculations for surprisal. For example,surprisal could be calculated as log(P)/log(Q), (P*log(P))/(Q*log(Q)),P{circumflex over ( )}2/Q{circumflex over ( )}2, X*P/Q (where X is acoefficient), Q/P, etc. The embodiments discussed primarily herein arethose in which P (or a function thereof) is in the numerator and Q (or afunction thereof) are in the denominator, but the techniques applyequally even if the positions of P and Q are swapped. In the embodimentswhere P is in the numerator of the equation and Q is in the denominator,higher surprisal can be associated with the one or more particular dataelements providing more information to the model; and lower surprisalcan be associated with the one or more particular data elementsproviding less information to the model. The opposite could be true whenP is in the denominator and Q is in the numerator. The higher theinformation provided to the model from the data element, the “better”the model will be with the data element included. Therefore, the higherthe surprisal, the more likely the data element will be added to themodel.

Process 100 then proceeds by determining whether to include 150 the oneor more particular data elements based on the determined 140 surprisal.As noted above and elsewhere, the higher the surprisal of the one ormore particular data elements, the more information it provides to themodel, and the more likely it should be included in the model. In someembodiments, determining whether to include 150 the one or moreparticular data elements in the model includes determining whether thesurprisal is above a (lower limit) threshold. If the surprisal of a newdata element meets the particular threshold, then it will be included inthe model. This approach can be useful when the goal of using thetechniques herein is to balance information in the model and model size(whether pruning an existing model or building a model as data elementsare considered, e.g., during training). In some embodiments, thesurprisal threshold is a numeric threshold (e.g., 0.1, 1, 2.1, 100,etc.). The surprisal is then compared to that threshold in order to makethe determination of whether to include 150 the one or more particulardata elements. In some embodiments, the surprisal threshold is a ratioof the surprisal of the one or more particular data elements and theaverage surprisal of the data elements of the computer-based reasoningmodel. For example, if the one or more data elements has a surprisalthat is X % (e.g., 100%, 150%, 200%, etc.) of the average surprisal ofthe computer-based reasoning model, then it may be included in thecomputer-based reasoning model. It may be beneficial to not add cases tothe model with low entropy when it would not provide sufficientadditional information to the computer-based reasoning model. Forexample, a low pass filter may remove anomalies, and a high pass filtermay remove redundancies. So, in some embodiments, the surprisal iscompared both to high and low thresholds, and is only added if thesurprisal is within the bounds (or not outside the bounds) of the twothresholds.

In some embodiments, the element with the top N surprisals are the onlyones included in the computer-based reasoning model. Limiting the modelto a certain number (N) of data elements may be a useful approach when acertain limit on the computer-based reasoning model size is desired forreasons such as memory availability, tolerable latency for the model torespond, and computational effort required. In examples and embodimentsin which a reduction in computer-based reasoning model of a particularsize is the goal (e.g., removing D data elements), then the dataelements with the lowest N surprisal may be excluded from the model.

Consider the example of Alicia training a self-driving vehiclesimulation. As the new data elements (e.g., context-action pairs relatedto the context of the vehicle and the actions being taken) are received,each may be assessed for surprisal with respect to the computer-basedreasoning model being built. If the goal is to limit the addition of newdata elements to only those with certain surprisal, then the surprisalmay be compared to a threshold, and the data element may only be addedto the computer-based reasoning model if the surprisal for the dataelement exceeds a (lower limit) threshold. If the goal is to limit thecomputer-based reasoning model size to a particular threshold, then allcandidate data elements may be assessed, and only those with the highestsurprisal are added to the computer-based reasoning model (e.g., thedata elements with the top N surprisals, where N is the goal for thenumber of data elements in the computer-based reasoning model).

Going further into the example, surprising data elements (those withhigh surprisal) may be those that are least related to previous dataelements in the computer-based reasoning model. For example, if Aliciahas not previously driven over railroad tracks, then data elements(e.g., context-action pairs) related to actions taken in the context ofdriving over railroad tracks may be the most surprising. If Alicia hasdriven for many miles on straight stretches of highway during daylight,then additional data elements in that context may not generate highsurprisal scores.

As another example, some embodiments are related to systems for labelingimages. Human experts may label images in order to identify features ofthe images and/or the subject of the image. These labels, and thecontexts in which they were made (the image being the primary source ofthe context), may be used as training data for a computer-basedreasoning model. The techniques herein could be used to determine howmuch surprisal each new data element (e.g., a context-label pair)provides, and only include those data elements that have a surprisalabove a certain (lower limit) threshold. Similarly, a computer-basedreasoning model for image labeling could also be pruned, assessing eachdata element and including only the data elements with the top Nsurprisals and/or excluding the data elements with the bottom Dsurprisals.

As yet another example, some embodiments relate to making decisions onhow to value claims. For example, numerous input data may be gatheredrelated to a claim (data on the entity or person making the claim, howand when the underlying event occurred, etc.). As new data elements forclaim valuation are received, each can have its surprisal determinedrelative to the existing computer-based reasoning model. Those new dataelements with surprisals above a certain threshold would be added to thecomputer-based reasoning model. Those with surprisals below thethreshold may be excluded from the computer-based reasoning model.Further, the computer-based reasoning model may be pruned by excludingthe data elements with the lowest surprisal and/or only including thosewith the highest surprisal.

As alluded to in the examples above, in some embodiments, more than oneembodiment or approach described herein may be used (not depicted inFIG. 1). For example, during the training of a computer-based reasoningsystem, only data elements with surprisals above a particular thresholdmay be added to the computer-based reasoning model. Once the training isover, it may be pruned (e.g., limiting the model to the top N most“surprising” data elements and/or removing the bottom D least surprisingdata elements). Further, in some embodiments, the criteria used foradding (or pruning) may change over time. For example, the threshold toadd new data elements to a computer-based reasoning model may increaseas the model grows, making it yet harder for a data element to be“surprising” enough to be added to the model. Additionally, or in thealternative, the threshold to add new data elements may decrease overtime, allowing data elements to be added even if they are lesssurprising. Further, the threshold may stay the same and, due to thedecreased relative informativeness of data elements in the same trainingdomain, fewer data elements will be accepted into the model as the modelbecomes asymptotically representative of the training domain. In thisway, the techniques recognize that, as a computer-based reasoning modelgrows, it becomes increasingly difficult for new data elements to be“surprising.”

As depicted in FIG. 1, the process 100 may optionally return todetermine whether other data elements should be included in thecomputer-based reasoning model (e.g., indicated by the dashed line from150 to 110). In the embodiments and examples in which a model is beingbuilt (e.g., during training), this includes new data elements beingconsidered for inclusion. For example, as Alicia is driving, new dataelements, such as context-action pairs can be assessed for inclusion inthe computer-based reasoning model using the techniques herein. In thecontext of reducing model size once it has been built, the process 100may be run for each element (or some subset of them) in thecomputer-based reasoning model. As noted elsewhere herein, the dataelements of an existing computer-based reasoning model may be assesseduntil a threshold number (D) have been excluded from the computer-basedreasoning model and/or a threshold number (N) have been selected forinclusion in the computer-based reasoning model.

In some embodiments, when the determined 140 surprisal is below acertain threshold, the techniques may include flagging that thesurprisal is low (not depicted in FIG. 1). This can be useful, forexample, during collection of training data. For example, if Alicia isdriving in a context where much data has already been collected (e.g.,daytime highway driving and straight sections of road), and thesurprisal for the data elements in those contexts could be low. As such,Alicia could be given an indication (e.g., in the form of an audio cuefrom a computer-based reasoning training and analysis system 210 withinthe vehicle, or the like) that driving in the current context was notproviding much additional information to the computer-based reasoningmodel. In response to the flagging, Alicia might exit the highway tostart training the computer-based reasoning on side streets. Techniquesand embodiments such as this not only help control the size of thecomputer-based reasoning model but also could be helpful in reducing theamount of time and effort needed to train the computer-based reasoningmodel by helping focus the training. Further, an indication thatincoming data elements are not providing much additional information canalso be an indication that the computer-based reasoning model is ripefor pruning and such an indication could be used to prompt the start ofprocess 100.

In some embodiments, another way a model may be culled is by removingdata elements associated with anomalous actions (not depicted in FIG.1). An anomaly could be flagged during later operation (e.g., if ananomalous action occurs, it could be flagged by an operator of thesystem being controlled). In some embodiments, the context-action pairor data element associated with the anomalous action could be flaggedfor removal. The anomalous data element could be removed from the model.Removing anomalous data not only can benefit the use of the modelbecause anomalous decision will no longer (or less likely) be made usingthe computer-based reasoning model, but also the computer-basedreasoning model will be smaller, which has the benefits discussedherein.

When an anomaly is detected, more data “around” the data elementassociated with the anomaly might be needed. For example, if an anomalyis detected, the context in which the anomaly occurred might be ripe foradditional data elements. This could be “flagged” for a trainer, whocould then focus training on that context. These additional dataelements could then be considered for addition to the computer-basedreasoning model in the manner described herein.

When the model is ready for use it may be provided to a control system(e.g., control system 220 of FIG. 2) for control of a real-world system.One example of controlling a system is controlling an image labellingsystem which is discussed with respect to FIG. 4, and elsewhere herein.

Another example of controlling a real-world system is controlling aself-driving vehicle. Vehicle-related data elements and control arediscussed with respect to FIG. 4 and elsewhere herein, and can includeobtaining contextual data for a current context for the self-drivingvehicle (e.g., what context is the vehicle in at the moment),determining an action based on the current context, and causingperformance of the determined context for the self-driving vehicle.

Additional Example Process for Entropy-Based Techniques for Creation ofWell-Balanced Computer Based Reasoning Systems

The techniques herein are often described in terms of including orexcluding particular data elements, such as data context-action pairs,as part of, e.g., a case-based reasoning model. In some embodiments, inaddition to or instead of including particular context action pairs, thetechniques can be used to include or exclude other types of dataelements, such as features of data elements a computer-based reasoningmodel and/or parameters of a computer-based reasoning model. Forexample, the techniques can be used to determine the surprisal offeatures in the data elements. As one example and turning to process 500of FIG. 5, in the vehicular context, the data elements may include inputfeatures, such as road width on which the vehicle is driving. Thesurprisal for the inclusion of road width can be determined 520, 530,540. And the determination whether to select or include 550 the featurecan then be made. After that, the vehicle could be controlled 560 usingthe updated computer-based reasoning model. Further, this can be donefor features that are inputs (e.g., road width, vehicle weight, etc.),as well as outputs (e.g., whether to break, turn left, etc.). As anotherexample, the techniques herein may include determining whether toinclude or exclude particular parameters of the computer-based reasoningmodel, such as proximity, similarity, topology, feature weights, datatransformations, function selection, etc. used in the computer-basedreasoning model.

Returning to the top of FIG. 5, a request may be received 510 as towhether to include or select one or more particular aspects in acomputer-based reasoning model. The request may be received using anyappropriate communication mechanism, such as HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, FTPS, anAPI call, a remote procedure call, a function or procedure call, Asnoted above, these aspects can be features of data elements (e.g.,individual or sets of values or variables in the contexts, particularaction data, etc.). The aspects can also be aspects of thecomputer-based reasoning model itself, such as proximity, similarity,topology, feature weights, data transformations, function selection,etc.

PDMFs are determined 520 and 530 for the model with and without theparticular aspects of the computer-based reasoning model, and thesurprisal of including the particular aspects can be determined 540 fromthe two PDMFs. Determining PDMFs are described elsewhere herein. In thevehicular example, a determination could be made for the computer-basedreasoning model including in the list of features considered the widthof the road (for the first PDMF) and without the width of the road (thesecond PDMF). If the surprisal determined is above a certain (lowerlimit) threshold (e.g., a numeric value or a percentage as compared tothe average for the computer-based reasoning model), then the featuremay be selected or included 550 in the computer-based reasoning model,or, e.g., the feature of road width may be considered in the dataelements in the model. It may be beneficial to not add cases to themodel with low entropy when it would not provide sufficient additionalinformation to the computer-based reasoning model, and to avoid addingcases with very high surprisal to avoid adding anomalous cases. Forexample, a low pass filter may remove anomalies, and a high pass filtermay remove redundancies. So, in some embodiments, the surprisal iscompared both to high and low thresholds, and is only added if thesurprisal is within the bounds (not out of bounds) of the twothresholds.

As another example, a request may be received 510 to determine whichdistance function (e.g., Euclidean distance, Minkowski distance,Damerau-Levenshtein distance, Kullback-Leibler divergence, etc.) andwhich distance function parameters to use for calculating distance amongdata elements. The surprisal can be determined 520, 530, 540 for each ofthe candidate premetrics/distance measures and the function with thehighest surprisal may be chosen as the parameter to be selected orincluded 550 with the computer-based reasoning model.

Process 500 optionally may return from the determination whether toselect or include 550 particular aspects into the computer-basedreasoning in order to receive more requests 510, and make moredetermination 520-550 of what to include in the computer-based reasoningmodel. When there are no more aspects to consider selecting or including550, the computer-based reasoning model may be sent to a control systemand a system may be controlled 560 with that computer-based reasoningmodel. Various aspects of controlling the system are discussedthroughout herein, including with respect to FIG. 4.

As used herein, the term “model elements” is a broad term encompassingit plain and ordinary meaning and includes data elements (definedelsewhere herein) and aspects of computer-based reasoning models(defined elsewhere herein). As such, any discussion herein of thetechniques with respect to either the data elements or the aspects ofcomputer-based reasoning models would also be applicable to modelelements of the computer-based reasoning model.

Additional Example Processes for Entropy-Based Techniques for Creationof Well-Balanced Computer-Based Reasoning Systems

In some embodiments, as depicted in FIG. 6, one or more convictionmeasures, including surprisal measures or scores, and/or featureprediction contribution (together, these may be termed “featureconviction measures”) may be used to reduce the size of a model in acomputer-based reasoning system, determine what cases, features, orcombinations thereof to include or exclude from a model, etc. Forexample, if a feature does not contribute much information to a model,as determined by looking at one or more feature conviction measures,then it may be removed from the model. As a more specific example, thefeature conviction measures may be determined for multiple inputcontexts (e.g., tens of, hundreds of, thousands of, or more) and thefeature conviction measures may be determined 620 for each feature foreach input context. Those features that reach an exclusionary thresholdamount of contribution to a decision (e.g., as determined by the featureprediction contribution and/or other feature conviction measures) may beexcluded 640 from the computer-based reasoning model. In someembodiments, only those features that reach an inclusion threshold maybe included 650 in the computer-based reasoning model. In someembodiments, both an exclusionary lower threshold and inclusionary upperthreshold may be used. In other embodiments, the feature convictionmeasures of a feature may be used to rank features and the top Nfeatures may be those included in the models. Reducing the size of themodel by excluding features from the model may be beneficial inembodiments where the size of the model causes the need for extrastorage and/or computing power. In many computer-based reasoningsystems, smaller models (e.g., with fewer features being analyzed) maybe more efficient to store and require less computing power when makingdecision. The reduced models may be used, for example, with any of thetechniques described herein.

Returning to the top of process 600, as one example, in the vehicularcontext, the data elements may include input features, such as roadwidth on which the vehicle is driving. A feature conviction measure suchas the feature prediction contribution for the inclusion of road widthcan be determined 620. And the determination whether to select orinclude 650 or exclude 640 the feature from the computer-based reasoningmodel can then be made based on the feature conviction measure. Afterthat, control of the vehicle could be caused 660 using the updatedcomputer-based reasoning model (e.g., including or excluding roadwidth). Further, this can be done for features that are inputs (e.g.,road width, vehicle weight, etc.), as well as outputs (e.g., whether tobreak, turn left, etc.). As another example, the techniques herein mayinclude determining whether to include or exclude various parameters ofthe computer-based reasoning model, such as proximity, similarity,topology, feature weights, data transformations, function selection,etc. used in the computer-based reasoning model.

Returning to the top of FIG. 6, a request may be received 610 as towhether to include or exclude one or more particular features in acomputer-based reasoning model. The request may be received using anyappropriate communication mechanism, such as HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, FTPS, anAPI call, a remote procedure call, a function or procedure call, etc. Asnoted above, these features can be context or action features of cases,data elements, and/or context-action pairs, and examples of featuresinclude individual or sets of values or variables in the contexts,particular action data, etc. The features can also be aspects of thecomputer-based reasoning model itself, such as proximity, similarity,topology, feature weights, data transformations, function selection,etc.

Feature conviction measures are determined 620 for the particularfeatures of the computer-based reasoning model. Various embodiments ofdetermining feature conviction measures are described elsewhere herein,and include determining feature prediction scores, feature predictionconviction, surprisal for features, familiarity conviction for features,and/or the like. Additionally, as described elsewhere herein, each ofthe feature conviction measures may be determined 620 or calculatedusing targeted or untargeted techniques. In the vehicular example, adetermination 620 could be made for the feature conviction measures(either targeted or untargeted) for inclusion of the width of the roadin the computer-based reasoning model.

If the feature conviction measures are determined 630 to meetinclusivity conditions (e.g., a certain (lower limit) threshold (e.g., anumeric value or a percentage as compared to the average for thecomputer-based reasoning model) for feature prediction contribution ofthe feature), then the feature may be selected for or included 650 inthe computer-based reasoning model, or, e.g., the feature of road widthmay be included 650 as part of the context of the self-driving vehiclecomputer-based reasoning model. For example, if the feature predictioncontribution is determined 630 to be above a certain threshold (e.g., anumeric threshold), then the feature may be included 650 in thecomputer-based reasoning model, otherwise the feature may be excluded640.

In some embodiments, multiple feature conviction measures may be used.As an example of analysis of two or more feature conviction measures, insome embodiments, prediction conviction and familiarity conviction ofthe features may be determined 620. Features determined 630 to have highprediction conviction and low familiarity conviction (two featureconviction measures), may be excluded 640 from the computer-basedreasoning model. Features that do not meet this exclusion criteria maybe included 650 in the model. As another example, targeted featureconviction may be determined 620 as a sole feature conviction measure.If it is determined 630 that the targeted feature conviction is low,then the feature may be excluded 640 from the model, otherwise, it maybe included 650 in the model. Additional examples of inclusivityconditions include:

-   -   If both the familiarity conviction and prediction conviction are        low, then exclude the feature(s) from the model    -   If targeted and untargeted prediction conviction is low, then        exclude the feature(s) from the model    -   If the familiarity conviction is very high (above a specific        threshold), then exclude the feature(s) from the model    -   If the prediction conviction is high but the familiarity        conviction is in a region around 1, then exclude from the model.    -   If both the familiarity conviction and prediction conviction are        high, then exclude the feature(s) from the model.    -   If the prediction contribution is low, then exclude the        feature(s) from the model.    -   If the product of the prediction conviction and familiarity        conviction is low, then exclude the feature from the model.

In any of the above conditions, it may be that the decision to includeor exclude a feature is made on a case by case basis, or, in someembodiments, the cases may be considered together or jointly, and thedecisions may be made based on the relative conviction measures for thecases. For example, in some embodiments, the features with the highest(or lowest) N (e.g., as a percentage of the total number of features, ora fixed number) values for feature conviction measures may be included650 in the computer-based reasoning model. As a more specific example,the N features with the highest feature prediction contribution may beselected for inclusion in the computer-based reasoning model and allother features may be excluded. Relatedly, the feature with the lowest(or highest) N feature conviction measures may be excluded from thecomputer-based reasoning model and all other features may be included.For example, the N features with the lowest feature predictioncontribution may be excluded from the computer-based reasoning model andall other features may be included. Further, in some embodiments, two ormore of the conditions may be considered together when making a decisionto include or exclude a case.

As another example, a request may be received 610 to determine whichdistance function (e.g., Euclidean distance, Minkowski distance,Damerau-Levenshtein distance, Kullback-Leibler divergence, etc.) andwhich distance function parameters to use for calculating distance amongdata elements. The feature prediction contribution or other featureconviction measure can be determined 620 for each of the candidatepremetrics/distance measures and the function with the highest featureprediction contribution (or the feature for which its feature convictionmeasure meets inclusivity conditions) may be chosen as the distancefunction to be selected or included 650 with the computer-basedreasoning model.

Process 600 optionally may return 659 from the determination whether toselect or include 650 or exclude 640 particular features into thecomputer-based reasoning in order to receive 610 more requests, and makemore determinations 620 of what to include 650 or exclude 640 in thecomputer-based reasoning model. When there are no more aspects toconsider excluding 640 or including 650, the computer-based reasoningmodel may be sent to a control system and control of a system may becaused 660 with that computer-based reasoning model. Various aspects ofcontrolling the system are discussed throughout herein, including withrespect to FIG. 4.

As already alluded to, and not depicting in FIG. 6, the techniques todetermine whether to include features in a computer-based reasoningmodel may be used in conjunction with the surprisal-based featureinclusion techniques described herein with respect to process 500 andelsewhere. Further, both the surprisal and entropy-based techniquesherein are part of a genus of techniques that include the featureprediction contribution techniques and are described separately foradditional clarity.

Additional Example Processes for Entropy-Based Techniques for Creationof Well-Balanced Computer Based Reasoning Systems

In some embodiments, as depicted in FIG. 7, a conviction measure, suchas conviction (e.g., familiarity conviction and/or predictionconviction, either or both of targeted or untargeted) may be used toreduce the size of a model in a computer-based reasoning system. Forexample, if a case does not contribute much to a model, then it may beremoved from the model. As a more specific example, both familiarityconviction may be determined 720 for multiple cases in a case-basedreasoning model (e.g., tens of, hundreds of, thousands of, or more).Those cases that meet a checked condition 730 for inclusive, (e.g.,excluding based on high prediction conviction and low familiarityconviction) may be included 750 or excluded 740 from the computer-basedreasoning model, depending on the inclusivity condition. In someembodiments, only those cases that reach an inclusion threshold may beincluded 750 in the computer-based reasoning model, or only those casesthat reach an exclusion threshold may be excluded 740. In someembodiments, both an exclusionary lower threshold and inclusionary upperthreshold may be used. In other embodiments, conviction may be used torank features and the top N cases may be those included in the models.As noted elsewhere herein, excluding cases from the model, which reducesthe size of the model, may be beneficial in embodiments where the modelwould otherwise cause the need extra storage and/or computing power. Inmany computer-based reasoning systems, smaller models (e.g., with fewercases) may be more efficient to store and when making decision. Thereduced models may be used, for example, with any of the techniquesdescribed herein.

Returning to the top of process 700, in some embodiments, convictionmeasures (such as familiarity conviction and/or prediction conviction)may be used to determine whether to include or exclude cases, such ascontext action pairs. For example, training cases in a self-drivingvehicle computer-based reasoning model may be tested in order todetermine whether to include or exclude those particular cases (e.g.,whether to “prune” those cases and/or “compress” the model). In someembodiments, the training cases may be assessed before they are includedin a training data set. This can help a system determine whether toinclude new training data cases in a training data set or computer-basedreasoning model, or whether to exclude those cases.

As discussed elsewhere herein, information on the assessment whether toinclude 750 or exclude 740 cases can also be used to help directtraining. For example, if a new training case is included 750 in thetraining data set and/or computer-based reasoning model, then a human orautomated operator may be given that information in order to encouragemore data along those lines. If a case is excluded 740, then anindication can be sent to an operator in order to indicate to notinclude or produce more training data along those lines. As an example,in the vehicular context, cases may be related to driving on a highway.The contribution for the inclusion of the highway driving cases can bedetermined 720. And the determination whether to select or include 750or exclude 740 the case can then be made. After that, control of thevehicle could be caused 760 using the updated computer-based reasoningmodel.

Returning to the top of FIG. 7, the process receives 710 a request todetermine whether to include particular data in a computer-basedreasoning model. The request may be received 710 using any appropriatecommunication mechanism, such as HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, FTPS, an API call, aremote procedure call, a function or procedure call, The received 710request may be a request to reduce the size of a computer-basedreasoning model (or assess whether to add a new case to a computer-basedreasoning model). For example, a system or device (not depicted in FIG.2), may request the reduction in model size for a computer-basedreasoning model to the training and analysis system 210. In otherembodiments, the training and analysis system 210 may initiate the modelreduction request on its own (e.g., when a model reaches a certainthreshold or at a fixed interval). In some embodiments, the requestreceived 710 can be to reduce the model to a particular size, by acertain amount, or based on the informational value of the elements ofthe model (described more herein). As described herein, reducing thesize of the computer-based reasoning model while maintaining much of theinformational value of the model is beneficial. The model being culledcould be any appropriate model, including computer-based reasoningmodels for self-driving vehicles, manufacturing control, federatedsystem control, labelling images, decisions on claims (e.g., how to fundan insurance claim based on the factors of the case), and the like.

In some embodiments, the request to determine whether to include the oneor more particular cases in a computer-based reasoning model is received710 as part of training. For example, if the training is ongoing, therequest received 710 may be a request to determine whether to add anewly-received case to the computer-based reasoning model. Using thevehicular example, if Alicia is training a self-driving carcomputer-based reasoning system, and data (e.g., context-action pairs)is being collected for that drive (perhaps in real time, perhaps afterthe fact, but before the data is added to the model), then process 700may be used to determine whether each case or data elements for Alicia'straining data should be added to the computer-based reasoning model.Determining whether to add the elements before they are added to thecomputer-based reasoning model will allow the model to maintain asmaller size (by not adding elements that do not provide sufficientinformational value), while still adding those elements that do provideinformational value. As discussed herein, having a smaller model withhigh informational content can be beneficial.

One or more conviction scores may be determined 720 for the cases ordata elements. For example, prediction conviction and/or familiarityconviction scores for the case(s) or data elements may be determined.Determining prediction conviction and familiarity conviction aredescribed elsewhere herein. In some embodiments, one or more targeted oruntargeted conviction scores may be determined. In some embodiments,both familiarity conviction and prediction conviction may be determined720. Further, both or either of targeted and untargeted conviction (orboth or either of prediction conviction and familiarity conviction) maybe determined 720.

After the conviction scores have been determined 720, then a check 730is made whether the conviction scores meet an inclusivity condition. Asused herein, an inclusivity condition may be a condition to eitherinclude or exclude a case. For example, a check 730 may be made todetermine whether the prediction conviction is above a first thresholdand whether the familiarity conviction is below a second threshold. Ifthat condition is met, then, in some embodiments, the case may beexcluded 740 from the model. When the prediction conviction is high andthe familiarity conviction is low, then, in some embodiments, it may bethe case that the case is easy to “label” or associate with an outcome,but is not needed in the model (e.g., it does not provide much or anyadditional information), and it therefore may be excluded 740 from themodel. Therefore, the case can be excluded without reducing the overalleffectiveness of the model by much. The thresholds for high predictionconviction and low familiarity conviction may be any appropriatethreshold including, a value scaled by the size of the model, a valuescaled by the accuracy of the model, a fixed value, etc. If theconviction measure is used instead of conviction (without being taken asa ratio to the expected value), then additional thresholds may beappropriate including a fixed value of entropy, entropy scaled based onthe model, entropy scaled based on other measures of the model, etc.

Other conditions that may be checked 730 to determine whether include750 or exclude 740 cases from a computer-based reasoning model mayinclude checking 730 whether both prediction conviction and familiarityconviction are both high (e.g., each above a threshold).

If both are high, then the case may be excluded 740. In someembodiments, if prediction conviction is high and familiarity convictionis around 1 or some other moderately low value below 1, then the casemay be redundant, and may be excluded 740 from the model. Otherwise, itmay be included 750. Other possible checks 730 that can be made are:

-   -   If the targeted familiarity conviction high and untargeted        familiarity conviction high, then exclude the case from the        model.    -   If both the familiarity conviction and prediction conviction are        low, then exclude the case from the model.    -   If untargeted prediction conviction is high, include (don't        exclude) the case in the model.    -   If prediction conviction is high and familiarity conviction is        low, then exclude the case model    -   If targeted prediction conviction is high and familiarity        conviction is high, include (don't exclude) the case in the        model    -   If the product of prediction conviction and familiarity        conviction is high, then exclude the case in the model.    -   If the product of prediction conviction and familiarity        conviction is not in the top small percentage of the model, then        exclude the case from the model.

In any of the above conditions, it may be that the decision to includeor exclude a case is made on a case by case basis, or, in someembodiments, the cases may be considered together or jointly and thedecisions may be made based on the relative conviction measures for thecases. For example, only the top N cases for combined targetedprediction conviction and familiarity conviction may be included in themodel, and the rest may be excluded. Further, two or more of theconditions may be considered together when making a decision to includeor exclude a case. Not depicted in FIG. 7, surprisal for the case(s) mayalso be determined, as described elsewhere herein. The determinedsurprisal may be used in conjunction with or instead of one or more ofthe conviction measures described herein. For example, if surprisal islow and targeted prediction conviction is high, then the case may beincluded 750 (not excluded 740) from the model.

Excluding 740 a case from a model may include, in some embodiments,removing the case and/or a pointer to a case from a file, database, orother storage associated with the model. Including 750 a case in a modelmay include, in some embodiments, adding the case and/or a pointer to acase to a file, database, or other storage associated with the model.

In some embodiments, determining 730 whether cases meet the inclusivitycondition includes determining whether the cases are “archetype” cases.For example, an inclusivity condition can be determining whether theboth the prediction conviction and familiarity prediction are high(e.g., each above a particular threshold). If it is determined that bothprediction conviction and familiarity conviction are high, the case maybe considered an archetype, and therefore may be included 750 in themodel. If the inclusivity condition is not met, then the case may beexcluded 740 from the model. Relatedly, the inclusivity condition couldbe determining the top N cases or top P percent of cases (e.g., percentof cases in the model) for a combined prediction conviction andfamiliarity conviction score (e.g., as calculated by (predictionconviction)+(familiarity conviction); (prediction conviction){circumflexover ( )}x+(familiarity conviction){circumflex over ( )}y, where X andwhy may each be positive numbers; (prediction conviction)*(familiarityconviction); and the like). If a particular case meets the inclusivitycondition of being one of the top N cases (or top P percent of cases),then that particular case may be included 750 in the model, otherwise,it may be excluded 740. In some embodiments, high prediction convictionand moderate familiarity prediction may also be used as a inclusivitycondition.

After determining whether to include 750 or exclude 740 a case, then adetermination 759 is made whether to consider more cases or dataelements for inclusion 750 or exclusion 740. If there are more cases toconsider, then conviction score(s) are determined 720 for the nextcases, and process 700 proceeds. If there are no more cases to considerfor exclusion, then control of a controllable system may be cause 760.Causing 760 control of a controllable system is described elsewhereherein.

In some embodiments, when determining 759 whether to continue including750 and/or excluding 740 more cases can include including or excludingcases until a space goal, memory size goal, and/or number of cases goalis met. For example, if the received 710 request includes a number ofcases by which to reduce the model, then cases may be removed until thatnumber of cases are excluded. If the received 710 request includes atotal number of cases to include in the model, then cases may beincluded 750 until that number of cases have been included in the model.

In some embodiments, determining 759 whether to exclude more cases mayinclude determining familiarity conviction for each case as it is beingremoved. When the familiarity conviction for a removed case equal orapproaches the average familiarity conviction for cases in the model(e.g., it could be a familiarity conviction of “1”), then that may be alimit on the number of cases that can be removed from the model. Forexample, removing more cases after removal of cases is associated with afamiliarity conviction near the average for the model may be associatedwith removing information from the model.

In some embodiments, determining 759 whether to exclude more cases mayinclude determining entropy for each case as it is being removed. Whenthe entropy for removal of a case goes up beyond a threshold amount,then that may be a limit on the cases that can be removed from themodel. For example, removing more cases after removal of cases after theentropy has gone up beyond a threshold amount may be associated withremoving information from the model. Determining whether entropy hasgone up beyond a threshold amount may include determining that theentropy has increased by more than a particular percentage (e.g., 10%,90%, 150%, etc.) by more than a particular amount (e.g., 1, 2, 10, 100),or by using any other appropriate technique.

As discussed elsewhere, the techniques for inclusion 750 or exclusion740 of cases based on surprisal and/or conviction can be useful when thegoal of using the techniques herein is to balance information in themodel and model size (whether pruning an existing model or building amodel as cases are considered, e.g., during training). In someembodiments, the surprisal and/or conviction thresholds are numericthresholds (e.g., 0.1, 1, 2.1, 100, etc.). The surprisal or convictionis then compared to that threshold in order to make the determination ofwhether to include 750 or exclude 740 the one or more cases. In someembodiments, as discussed elsewhere herein, it may be beneficial to notadd (exclude 740) cases to the model when they do not provide sufficientadditional information to the computer-based reasoning model. Forexample, a low pass filter may remove anomalies, and a high pass filtermay remove redundancies. So, in some embodiments, the surprisal iscompared both to high and low thresholds, and is only included 750 ifthe conviction scores and/or surprisal scores are within bounds (or notoutside the bounds) of the two thresholds.

In some embodiments, the received 710 request may request a particularsize of computer-based reasoning model. The element with the top N“scores” with respect to a particular measure are the only ones included750 in the computer-based reasoning model, and the rest are excluded,where N may be calculated as the number of cases that meet theparticular size for the computer-based reasoning model. For example, theN cases with the highest prediction conviction scores and lowestfamiliarity conviction scores may be selected for inclusion 750 in themodel and the rest of the cases may be excluded 740. For example, the Ncases with the highest value in the formula (predictionconviction)−(familiarity conviction) may be selected for inclusion 750in the model. Limiting the model to a certain number (N) of cases may bea useful approach when a certain limit on the computer-based reasoningmodel size is desired for reasons such as memory availability, tolerablelatency for the model to respond, and computational effort required. Inexamples and embodiments in which a request for reduction incomputer-based reasoning model of a particular size is received 710(e.g., removing D cases), then the cases with the lowest D scores on aparticular measure may be excluded 740 from the model.

Consider the example of Alicia training a self-driving vehiclesimulation. As the new cases (e.g., context-action pairs related to thecontext of the vehicle and the actions being taken) are received, eachmay be assessed with respect to the computer-based reasoning model beingbuilt (e.g., using a process discussed herein such as process 700). Ifthe goal is to limit the addition of new cases to only those withcertain additional information gain, then the condition may be checked730, and the case may only be included 750 to the computer-basedreasoning model if the condition indicates inclusion, otherwise, thecase may be excluded 740. If the goal is to limit the computer-basedreasoning model size to a particular threshold, then all candidate casesmay be assessed, and only those with the for which the check 730indicates inclusion 750 are added to the computer-based reasoning model(e.g., the cases with the top N surprisals, where N is the goal for thenumber of cases in the computer-based reasoning model).

Going further into the example, cases that meet the checked 730conditions may be those that are least related to previous cases in thecomputer-based reasoning model. For example, if Alicia has notpreviously driven over railroad tracks, then cases (e.g., context-actionpairs) related to actions taken in the context of driving over railroadtracks may be the most surprising and have the most information gain. IfAlicia has driven for many miles on straight stretches of highway duringdaylight, then additional cases in that context may not be excluded 740based on the checks 730.

As another example, some embodiments are related to systems for labelingimages. Human experts may label images in order to identify features ofthe images and/or the subject of the image. These labels, and thecontexts in which they were made (the image being the primary source ofthe context), may be used as training data for a computer-basedreasoning model. The techniques herein could be used to determinewhether to include 750 each new case or data element (e.g., acontext-label pair), and only include 750 those cases that aredetermined to not be excluded 740 based on checking 730 conditions.Similarly, a computer-based reasoning model for image labeling couldalso be pruned, assessing each case and including only the cases withthe top N scores for the conditions checked 730 and/or excluding thecases with the bottom D scores for the conditions checked 730.

As alluded to in the examples above, in some embodiments, more than oneembodiment or approach described herein may be used (not depicted inFIG. 7). For example, during the training of a computer-based reasoningsystem, only cases that meet the checked 730 conditions may be included750 to the computer-based reasoning model. Once the training is over,the model may be pruned (e.g., limiting the model to the top N highestscoring case for the checked 730 conditions and/or removing the bottom Dlowest scores on the checked conditions). Further, in some embodiments,the criteria used for adding (or pruning) may change over time. Forexample, the threshold to add new cases to a computer-based reasoningmodel may increase as the model grows, making it yet harder for a caseto be included 750 in the model. Additionally, or in the alternative,the threshold to add new cases may decrease over time, allowing cases tobe added even if they have lower scores on the checked 730 conditions.Further, the threshold may stay the same and, due to the decreasedrelative informativeness of cases in the same training domain, fewercases will be accepted into the model as the model becomesasymptotically representative of the training domain. In this way, thetechniques recognize that, as a computer-based reasoning model grows, itbecomes increasingly difficult for new cases to meet the conditions forinclusion.

As depicted in FIG. 7, the process 700 may optionally determine 759whether other cases should be included or excluded in the computer-basedreasoning model. In the embodiments and examples in which a model isbeing built (e.g., during training), this includes new cases beingconsidered for inclusion 750. For example, as Alicia is driving, newcases, such as context-action pairs can be assessed for inclusion in thecomputer-based reasoning model using the techniques herein. In thecontext of reducing model size once it has been built, the process 700may be run for each case (or some subset of them) in the computer-basedreasoning model. As noted elsewhere herein, the cases of an existingcomputer-based reasoning model may be assessed until a threshold number(D) have been excluded from the computer-based reasoning model and/or athreshold number (N) have been selected for inclusion in thecomputer-based reasoning model.

In some embodiments, when the determined to exclude 740 a case, thetechniques may include flagging that the case is being excluded (notdepicted in FIG. 7). This can be useful, for example, during collectionof training data. For example, if Alicia is driving in a context wheremuch data has already been collected (e.g., daytime highway driving andstraight sections of road), many of those cases may be excluded 740. Assuch, Alicia could be given an indication (e.g., in the form of an audiocue from a computer-based reasoning training and analysis system 210within the vehicle, or the like) that driving in the current context wasnot providing much additional information to the computer-basedreasoning model. In response to the flagging, Alicia might exit thehighway to start training the computer-based reasoning on side streets.Techniques and embodiments such as this not only help control the sizeof the computer-based reasoning model but also could be helpful inreducing the amount of time and effort needed to train thecomputer-based reasoning model by helping focus the training. Further,an indication that incoming cases are not providing much additionalinformation can also be an indication that the computer-based reasoningmodel is ripe for pruning and such an indication could be used to promptthe start of process 700.

In some embodiments, another way a model may be culled is by removingcases associated with anomalous actions (not depicted in FIG. 7). Ananomaly could be flagged during later operation (e.g., if an anomalousaction occurs, it could be flagged by an operator of the system beingcontrolled). In some embodiments, the case, context-action pair, or dataelement associated with the anomalous action could be flagged forremoval. The anomalous cases could be removed from the model. Removinganomalous data not only can benefit the use of the model becauseanomalous decision will no longer (or less likely) be made using thecomputer-based reasoning model, but also the computer-based reasoningmodel will be smaller, which has the benefits discussed herein.

When an anomaly is detected, more data “around” the case or data elementassociated with the anomaly might be needed. For example, if an anomalyis detected, the context in which the anomaly occurred might be ripe foradditional cases. This could be “flagged” for a trainer, who could thenfocus training on that context. These additional cases could then beconsidered for addition to the computer-based reasoning model in themanner described herein.

When the model is ready for use it may be provided to a control system(e.g., control system 220 of FIG. 2) for causing 760 control of acontrollable real-world system. One example of controlling a system iscontrolling an image labelling system which is discussed with respect toFIG. 4, and elsewhere herein.

Another example of causing 760 control of a real-world system is causingcontrol of a self-driving vehicle. Vehicle-related cases and control arediscussed with respect to FIG. 4 and elsewhere herein, and can includeobtaining contextual data for a current context for the self-drivingvehicle (e.g., what context is the vehicle in at the moment),determining an action based on the current context, and causingperformance of the determined context for the self-driving vehicle.

Weighting Based on Conviction Measures

In some embodiments, not necessarily depicted in the figures, convictionmeasures may be used to weight features and or cases in variouscontexts. For example, in embodiments where features are used togetherto determine a decision, action, etc. (such as determining the value toset a throttle to, the direction of a steering mechanism, the pressureof a valve, etc.), the features can all be equally weighted. In someembodiments, however, the features can have weights therewithassociated. The weights on the features may be preset (e.g., by a humanoperator) or they may be determined based on one or more of theconviction measures. For example, in some embodiments, the convictionscore (or a multiple or ratio of it) of a feature may be used as theweight for the feature when determining a value for the distance metric.This may be beneficial when the distance between two cases may be bettermeasured by weighting more heavily toward features with higherconviction. As another example, the features could be weighted byanother ratio, sum, product, or other function of a conviction measure,such as the square of the feature prediction contribution, thereciprocal of the familiarity conviction, the feature predictioncontribution*the familiarity conviction, etc.

In some embodiments, conviction measures may also be used to weight theimportance of cases in any appropriate context. For example, as aparallel to, in addition to, and/or instead of performing model pruning,cases can be weighted based on the conviction of the case. For example,lower conviction cases may be given less weight (e.g., in determiningwhat action among the kNN's actions to choose or perform or causeperformance of, reducing the impact of anomalies in a self-drivingvehicle, increasing the impact of anomalous data to better handle defectdetection in an assembly line, etc.). As another example, if a moresurprising action is desired, cases with higher conviction could beweighted lower when choosing what action to perform. Weights for casesmay, in various embodiments, be any ratio, sum, product, or otherfunction of any of the conviction measures (or their reciprocal ornegative), such as 1*prediction conviction, the square of familiarityconviction, targeted prediction conviction*untargeted familiarityconviction.

Comparing Two Computer Based Reasoning Systems

In some embodiments, the techniques herein include comparing twocomputer-based reasoning models to see which of the two is moresurprising and/or has more information. For example, the data elements(e.g., using process 100 or 600) or aspects (e.g., using process 500 or700) of one computer-based reasoning model can be compared to anothercomputer-based reasoning model. The model with the higher surprisalwould be considered to have more information. This determination can beuseful when the models differ (possibly even considerably), and adetermination on which model provides more information will inform achoice of which model to use. Further, one computer-based reasoningmodel can be directly compared to one or more computer-based reasoningmodels by computing the surprisal of adding all of the training elementscontained in the first computer-based reasoning model to each of theothers. The surprisal of each pairing indicates which models areanomalous compared to the baseline. Individual training cases can becompared from one computer-based reasoning model to another, and thehighest surprisal training cases show where the first model differs fromthe second.

Example Processes for Controlling Systems

FIG. 4 depicts an example process 400 for controlling a system. In someembodiments and at a high level, the process 400 proceeds by receivingor receiving 410 a computer-based reasoning model for controlling thesystem. The computer-based reasoning model may be one created usingprocess 100, as one example. In some embodiments, the process 400proceeds by receiving 420 a current context for the system, determining430 an action to take based on the current context and thecomputer-based reasoning model, and causing 440 performance of thedetermined action (e.g., labelling an image, causing a vehicle toperform the turn, lane change, waypoint navigation, etc.). If operationof the system continues 450, then the process returns to receive 420 thecurrent context, and otherwise discontinues 460 control of the system.

As discussed herein the various processes 100, 400, 500, 600, 700 etc.may run in parallel, in conjunction, together, or one process may be asubprocess of another. Further, any of the processes may run on thesystems or hardware discussed herein. The features and steps ofprocesses 100, 400, 500, 600, 700 could be used in combination and/or indifferent orders.

Self-Driving Vehicles

Returning to the top of the process 400, it begins by receiving 410 acomputer-based reasoning model for controlling the system. Thecomputer-based reasoning model may be received in any appropriatematter. It may be provided via a network 290, placed in a shared oraccessible memory on either the training and analysis system 210 orcontrol system 220, or in accessible storage, such as storage 230 or240.

In some embodiments (not depicted in FIG. 4), an operational situationcould be indicated for the system. The operational situation is relatedto context, but may be considered a higher level, and may not change (orchange less frequently) during operation of the system. For example, inthe context of control of a vehicle, the operational situation may beindicated by a passenger or operator of the vehicle, by a configurationfile, a setting, and/or the like. For example, a passenger Alicia mayselect “drive like Alicia” in order to have the vehicle driver like her.As another example, a fleet of helicopters may have a configuration fileset to operate like Bob. In some embodiments, the operational situationmay be detected. For example, the vehicle may detect that it isoperating in a particular location (area, city, region, state, orcountry), time of day, weather condition, etc. and the vehicle may beindicated to drive in a manner appropriate for that operationalsituation.

The operational situation, whether detected, indicated by passenger,etc., may be changed during operation of the vehicle. For example, apassenger may first indicate that she would like the vehicle to drivecautiously (e.g., like Alicia), and then realize that she is runninglater and switch to a faster operation mode (e.g., like Carole). Theoperational situation may also change based on detection. For example,if a vehicle is operating under an operational situation for aparticular portion of road, and detects that it has left that portion ofroad, it may automatically switch to an operational situationappropriate for its location (e.g., for that city), may revert to adefault operation (e.g., a baseline program that operates the vehicle)or operational situation (e.g., the last used). In some embodiments, ifthe vehicle detects that it needs to change operational situations, itmay prompt a passenger or operator to choose a new operationalsituation.

In some embodiments, the computer-based reasoning model is receivedbefore process 400 begins (not depicted in FIG. 4), and the processbegins by receiving 420 the current context. For example, thecomputer-based reasoning model may already be loaded into a controller220 and the process 400 begins by receiving 420 the current context forthe system being controlled. In some embodiments, referring to FIG. 2,the current context for a system to be controlled (not depicted in FIG.2) may be sent to control system 220 and control system 220 may receive420 current context for the system.

Receiving 420 current context may include receiving the context dataneeded for a determination to be made using the computer-based reasoningmodel. For example, turning to the vehicular example, receiving 420 thecurrent context may, in various embodiments, include receivinginformation from sensors on or near the vehicle, determining informationbased on location or other sensor information, accessing data about thevehicle or location, etc. For example, the vehicle may have numeroussensors related to the vehicle and its operation, such as one or more ofeach of the following: speed sensors, tire pressure monitors, fuelgauges, compasses, global positioning systems (GPS), RADARs, LiDARs,cameras, barometers, thermal sensors, accelerometers, strain gauges,noise/sound measurement systems, etc. Current context may also includeinformation determined based on sensor data. For example, the time toimpact with the closest object may be determined based on distancecalculations from RADAR or LiDAR data, and/or may be determined based ondepth-from-stereo information from cameras on the vehicle. Context mayinclude characteristics of the sensors, such as the distance a RADAR orLiDAR is capable of detecting, resolution and focal length of thecameras, etc. Context may include information about the vehicle not froma sensor. For example, the weight of the vehicle, acceleration,deceleration, and turning or maneuverability information may be knownfor the vehicle and may be part of the context information.Additionally, context may include information about the location,including road condition, wind direction and strength, weather,visibility, traffic data, road layout, etc.

Referring back to the example of vehicle control rules for Bob flying ahelicopter, the context data for a later flight of the helicopter usingthe vehicle control rules based on Bob's operation of the helicopter mayinclude fuel remaining, distance that fuel can allow the helicopter totravel, location including elevation, wind speed and direction,visibility, location and type of sensors as well as the sensor data,time to impact with the N closest objects, maneuverability and speedcontrol information, etc. Returning to the stop sign example, whetherusing vehicle control rules based on Alicia or Carole, the context mayinclude LiDAR, RADAR, camera and other sensor data, locationinformation, weight of the vehicle, road condition and weatherinformation, braking information for the vehicle, etc.

The control system then determined 430 an action to take based on thecurrent context and the computer-based reasoning model. For example,turning to the vehicular example, an action to take is determined 430based on the current context and the vehicle control rules for thecurrent operational situation. In some embodiments that use machinelearning, the vehicle control rules may be in the form of a neuralnetwork (as described elsewhere herein), and the context may be fed intothe neural network to determine an action to take. In embodiments usingcase-based reasoning, the set of context-action pairs closest to thecurrent context may be determined. In some embodiments, only the closestcontext-action pair is determined, and the action associated with thatcontext-action pair is the determined 430 action. In some embodiments,multiple context-action pairs are determined 430. For example, the N“closest” context-action pairs may be determined 430, and either as partof the determining 430, or later as part of the causing 440 performanceof the action, choices may be made on the action to take based on the Nclosest context-action pairs, where “distance” for between the currentcontext can be measured using any appropriate technique, including useof Euclidean distance, Minkowski distance, Damerau-Levenshtein distance,Kullback-Leibler divergence, and/or any other distance measure, metric,pseudometric, premetric, index, or the like.

In some embodiments, the actions to be taken may be blended based on theaction of each context-action pair, with invalid (e.g., impossible ordangerous) outcomes being discarded. A choice can also be made among theN context-action pairs chosen based on criteria such as choosing to usethe same or different operator context-action pair from the lastdetermined action. For example, in an embodiment where there arecontext-action pair sets from multiple operators in the vehicle controlrules, the choice of which context-action pair may be based on whether acontext-action pair from the same operator was just chosen (e.g., tomaintain consistency). The choice among the top N context-action pairsmay also be made by choosing at random, mixing portions of the actionstogether, choosing based on a voting mechanism, etc.

Some embodiments include detecting gaps in the training data and/orvehicle control rules and indicating those during operation of thevehicle (for example, via prompt and/or spoken or graphical userinterface) or offline (for example, in a report, on a graphical display,etc.) to indicate what additional training is needed (not depicted inFIG. 4). In some embodiments, when the computer-based reasoning systemdoes not find context “close enough” to the current context to make aconfident decision on an action to take, it may indicate this andsuggest that an operator might take manual control of the vehicle, andthat operation of the vehicle may provide additional context and actiondata for the computer-based reasoning system. Additionally, in someembodiments, an operator may indicate to a vehicle that she would liketo take manual control to either override the computer-based reasoningsystem or replace the training data. These two scenarios may differ bywhether the data (for example, context-action pairs) for the operationalscenario are ignored for this time period, or whether they are replaced.

In some embodiments, the operational situation may be chosen based on aconfidence measure indicating confidence in candidate actions to takefrom two (or more) different sets of control rules (not depicted in FIG.4). Consider a first operational situation associated with a first setof vehicle control rules (e.g., with significant training from Aliciadriving on highways) and a second operational situation associated witha second set of vehicle control rules (e.g., with significant trainingfrom Carole driving on rural roads). Candidate actions and associatedconfidences may be determined for each of the sets of vehicle controlrules based on the context. The determined 430 action to take may thenbe selected as the action associated with the higher confidence level.For example, when the vehicle is driving on the highway, the actionsfrom the vehicle control rules associated with Alicia may have a higherconfidence, and therefore be chosen. When the vehicle is on rural roads,the actions from the vehicle control rules associated with Carole mayhave higher confidence and therefore be chosen. Relatedly, in someembodiments, a set of vehicle control rules may be hierarchical, andactions to take may be propagated from lower levels in the hierarchy tohigh levels, and the choice among actions to take propagated from thelower levels may be made on confidence associated with each of thosechosen actions. The confidence can be based on any appropriateconfidence calculation including, in some embodiments, determining howmuch “extra information” in the vehicle control rules is associated withthat action in that context.

In some embodiments, there may be a background or baseline operationalprogram that is used when the computer-based reasoning system does nothave sufficient data to make a decision on what action to take (notdepicted in FIG. 4). For example, if in a set of vehicle control rules,there is no matching context or there is not a matching context that isclose enough to the current context, then the background program may beused. If none of the training data from Alicia included what to do whencrossing railroad tracks, and railroad tracks are encountered in lateroperation of the vehicle, then the system may fall back on the baselineoperational program to handle the traversal of the railroad tracks. Insome embodiments, the baseline model is a computer-based reasoningsystem, in which case context-action pairs from the baseline model maybe removed when new training data is added. In some embodiments, thebaseline model is an executive driving engine which takes over controlof the vehicle operation when there are no matching contexts in thevehicle control rules (e.g., in the case of a context-based reasoningsystem, there might be no context-action pairs that are sufficiently“close”).

In some embodiments, determining 430 an action to take based on thecontext can include determining whether vehicle maintenance is needed.As described elsewhere herein, the context may include wear and/ortiming related to components of the vehicle, and a message related tomaintenance may be determined based on the wear or timing. The messagemay indicate that maintenance may be needed or recommended (e.g.,because preventative maintenance is often performed in the timing orwear context, because issues have been reported or detected withcomponents in the timing or wear context, etc.). The message may be sentto or displayed for a vehicle operator (such as a fleet managementservice) and/or a passenger. For example, in the context of anautomobile with sixty thousand miles, the message sent to a fleetmaintenance system may include an indication that a timing belt may needto be replaced in order to avoid a P percent chance that the belt willbreak in the next five thousand miles (where the predictive informationmay be based on previously-collected context and action data, asdescribed elsewhere herein). When the automobile reaches ninety thousandmiles and assuming the belt has not been changed, the message mayinclude that the chance that the belt will break has increased to, e.g.,P*4 in the next five thousand miles.

Performance of the determined 430 action is then caused 440. Turning tothe vehicular example, causing 440 performance of the action may includedirect control of the vehicle and/or sending a message to a system,device, or interface that can control the vehicle. The action sent tocontrol the vehicle may also be translated before it is used to controlthe vehicle. For example, the action determined 430 may be to navigateto a particular waypoint. In such an embodiment, causing 440 performanceof the action may include sending the waypoint to a navigation system,and the navigation system may then, in turn, control the vehicle on afiner-grained level. In other embodiments, the determined 430 action maybe to switch lanes, and that instruction may be sent to a control systemthat would enable the car to change the lane as directed. In yet otherembodiments, the action determined 430 may be lower-level (e.g.,accelerate or decelerate, turn 4° to the left, etc.), and causing 440performance of the action may include sending the action to be performedto a control of the vehicle, or controlling the vehicle directly. Insome embodiments, causing 440 performance of the action includes sendingone or more messages for interpretation and/or display. In someembodiments, the causing 440 the action includes indicating the actionto be taken at one or more levels of a control hierarchy for a vehicle.Examples of control hierarchies are given elsewhere herein.

Some embodiments include detecting anomalous actions taken or caused 440to be taken. These anomalous actions may be signaled by an operator orpassenger, or may be detected after operation of the vehicle (e.g., byreviewing log files, external reports, etc.). For example, a passengerof a vehicle may indicate that an undesirable maneuver was made by thevehicle (e.g., turning left from the right lane of a 2-lane road) or logfiles may be reviewed if the vehicle was in an accident. Once theanomaly is detected, the portion of the vehicle control rules (e.g.,context-action pair(s)) related to the anomalous action can bedetermined. If it is determined that the context-action pair(s) areresponsible for the anomalous action, then those context-action pairscan be removed or replaced using the techniques herein.

Referring to the example of the helicopter fleet and the vehicle controlrules associated with Bob, the vehicle control 220 may determine 430what action to take for the helicopter based on the received 420context. The vehicle control 220 may then cause the helicopter toperform the determined action, for example, by sending instructionsrelated to the action to the appropriate controls in the helicopter. Inthe driving example, the vehicle control 220 may determine 430 whataction to take based on the context of vehicle. The vehicle control maythen cause 440 performance of the determined 430 action by theautomobile by sending instructions to control elements on the vehicle.

If there are more 450 contexts for which to determine actions for theoperation of the system, then the process 400 returns to receive 410more current contexts. Otherwise, process 400 ceases 460 control of thesystem. Turning to the vehicular example, as long as there is acontinuation of operation of the vehicle using the vehicle controlrules, the process 400 returns to receive 420 the subsequent currentcontext for the vehicle. If the operational situation changes (e.g., theautomobile is no longer on the stretch of road associated with theoperational situation, a passenger indicates a new operationalsituation, etc.), then the process returns to determine the newoperational situation. If the vehicle is no longer operating undervehicle control rules (e.g., it arrived at its destination, a passengertook over manual control, etc.), then the process 400 will discontinue460 autonomous control of the vehicle.

Many of the examples discussed herein for vehicles discuss self-drivingautomobiles. As depicted in FIG. 2, numerous types of vehicles can becontrolled. For example, a helicopter 251 or drone, a submarine 252, orboat or freight ship 253, or any other type of vehicle such as plane ordrone (not depicted in FIG. 2), construction equipment, (not depicted inFIG. 2), and/or the like. In each case, the computer-based reasoningmodel may differ, including using different features, using differenttechniques described herein, etc. Further, the context of each type ofvehicle may differ. Flying vehicles may need context data such asweight, lift, drag, fuel remaining, distance remaining given fuel,windspeed, visibility, etc. Floating vehicles, such as boats, freightvessels, submarines, and the like may have context data such asbuoyancy, drag, propulsion capabilities, speed of currents, a measure ofthe choppiness of the water, fuel remaining, distance capabilityremaining given fuel, and the like. Manufacturing and other equipmentmay have as context width of area traversing, turn radius of thevehicle, speed capabilities, towing/lifting capabilities, and the like.

Image Labelling

The process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may also be applied in the contextof an image-labeling system. For example, numerous experts may labelimages (e.g., identifying features of or elements within those images).For example, the human experts may identify cancerous masses on x-rays.Having these experts label all input images is incredibly time consumingto do on an ongoing basis, in addition to being expensive (paying theexperts). The techniques herein may be used to train an image-labelingcomputer-based reasoning model based on previously-trained images. Oncethe image-labeling computer-based reasoning system has been built, theninput images may be analyzed using the image-based reasoning system. Inorder to build the image-labeling computer-based reasoning system,images may be labeled by experts and used as training data. Using thetechniques herein, the surprisal of the training data can be used tobuild an image-labeling computer-based reasoning system that balancesthe size of the computer-based reasoning model with the information thateach additional image (or set of images) with associated labelsprovides. Once the image-labelling computer-based reasoning is trained,it can be used to label images in the future. For example, a new imagemay come in, the image-labelling computer-based reasoning may determineone or more labels for the image, and then the one or more labels maythen be applied to the image. Thus, these images can be labeledautomatically, saving the time and expense related to having expertslabel the images.

In some embodiments, process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may determine(e.g., based on a received 110, 510, 610, 710 request) the relatedconviction measures, such as conviction, contribution, and/or surprisal,of each image (or multiple images) and the associated labels or of theaspects of the computer-based reasoning model. In some embodiments, foreach one or more images and their labels, a first and second PDMF may bedetermined 120, 130, 520, 530 (determining the PDMF is describedelsewhere herein). The surprisal for the one or more images may bedetermined 140, 540 and a determination may be made whether to select orinclude 150, 550 the one or more images (or aspects) in theimage-labeling computer-based reasoning model based on the determinedsurprisal. While there are more sets of one or more images with labelsto assess, the process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may return to determinewhether more image or label sets should be included or whether aspectsshould be included, excluded, and/or changed in the model. Once thereare no more images or aspects to consider, the process 100,500, 600,and/or 700 can turn to causing control or controlling 160, 560, 660, 760the image analysis system using the image-labeling computer-basedreasoning.

Causing control or controlling 160, 560, 660, 760 an image-labelingsystem may be accomplished by process 400. For example, if the dataelements are related to images and labels applied to those images, thenthe image-labeling computer-based reasoning model trained on that datawill apply labels to incoming images. Process 400 proceeds by receiving410 an image-labeling computer-based reasoning model. The processproceeds by receiving 420 an image for labeling. The image-labelingcomputer-based reasoning model is then used to determine 430 labels forthe input image. The image is then labeled 440. If there are more 450images to label, then the system returns to receive 410 those images andotherwise ceases 460. In such embodiments, the image-labelingcomputer-based reasoning model may be used to select labels based onwhich training image is “closest” to the incoming image. The label(s)associated with that image will then be selected to apply to theincoming image.

Manufacturing and Assembly

The process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may also be applied in the contextof manufacturing and/or assembly. For example, entropy can be used toidentify normal behavior versus anomalous behavior of such equipment.Using the techniques herein, a crane (e.g., crane 255 of FIG. 2), robotarm, or other actuator is attempting to “grab” something and itssurprisal is too high, it can stop, sound an alarm, shutdown certainareas of the facility, and/or request for human assistance. Anomalousbehavior that is detected via entropy among sensors and actuators can beused to detect when there is some sort breakdown, unusual wear and tearor mechanical or other malfunction, an unusual component or seed orcrop, etc. It can also be used to find damaged equipment for repairs orbuffing or other improvements for any robots that are searching andcorrecting defects in products or themselves (e.g., fixing a broken wireor smoothing out cuts made to the ends of a manufactured artifact madevia an extrusion process). Entropy can also be used for cranes and othergrabbing devices to find which cargo or items are closest matches towhat is needed. Entropy can be used to drastically reduce the amount oftime to train a robot to perform a new task for a new product or customorder, because the robot will indicate the aspects of the process itdoes not understand and direct training towards those areas and awayfrom things it has already learned. Combining this with stopping ongoingactions when an anomalous situation is detected would also allow a robotto begin performing work before it is fully done training, the same waythat a human apprentice may help out someone experienced while theapprentice is learning the job. Entropy can also inform what features orinputs to the robot are useful and which are not.

In some embodiments, process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may determine(e.g., based on a received 110, 510, 610, 710 request) the relatedconviction measures, such as conviction, contribution, and/or surprisalof one or more data elements (e.g., of the manufacturing equipment) oraspects (e.g., features of context-action pairs or aspects of the model)to potentially include in the manufacturing control computer-basedreasoning model. In some embodiments, for each of the one or moremanufacturing or assembly data elements or aspects (collectively called“manufacturing elements”), a first and second PDMF may be determined120, 520, 130, 530 (determining the PDMF is described elsewhere herein).The surprisal for the one or more manufacturing elements may bedetermined 140, 540 and a determination may be made whether to select orinclude 150, 550 the one or more manufacturing data elements or aspectsin the manufacturing control computer-based reasoning model based on thedetermined surprisal. While there are more sets of one or moremanufacturing data elements or aspects to assess, the process 100, 500,600, and/or 700 may return to determine whether more manufacturing dataelements or aspects sets should be included. Once there are no moremanufacturing data elements or aspects to consider, the process 100 or500 can turn to causing control or controlling 160, 560, 660, 760 themanufacturing system using the manufacturing control computer-basedreasoning system.

Controlling 160, 560, 660, 760 a manufacturing system may beaccomplished by process 400. For example, if the data elements arerelated to manufacturing data elements or aspects, then themanufacturing control computer-based reasoning model trained on thatdata will control manufacturing or assemble. Process 400 proceeds byreceiving 410 a manufacturing control computer-based reasoning model.The process proceeds by receiving 420 a context. The manufacturingcontrol computer-based reasoning model is then used to determine 430 anaction to take. The action is then performed by the control system(e.g., caused by the manufacturing control computer-based reasoningsystem). If there are more 450 contexts to consider, then the systemreturns to receive 410 those contexts and otherwise ceases 460. In suchembodiments, the manufacturing control computer-based reasoning modelmay be used to control a manufacturing system. The chosen actions arethen performed by a control system.

Smart Voice Control

The process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may also be applied in the contextof smart voice control. For example, combining multiple inputs and formsof analysis, the techniques herein can recognize if there is somethingunusual about a voice control request. For example, if a request is topurchase a high-priced item or unlock a door, but the calendar andsynchronized devices indicate that the family is out of town, it couldsend a request to the person's phone before confirming the order oraction; it could be that an intruder has recorded someone's voice in thefamily or has used artificial intelligence software to create a messageand has broken in. It can detect other anomalies for security or fordevices activating at unusual times, possibly indicating some mechanicalfailure, electronics failure, or someone in the house using thingsabnormally (e.g., a child frequently leaving the refrigerator door openfor long durations). Combined with other natural language processingtechniques beyond sentiment analysis, such as vocal distress, a smartvoice device can recognize that something is different and ask,improving the person's experience and improving the seamlessness of thedevice into the person's life, perhaps playing music, adjustinglighting, or HVAC, or other controls. The level of confidence providedby entropy can also be used to train a smart voice device more quicklyas it can ask questions about aspects of its use that it has the leastknowledge about. For example: “I noticed usually at night, but also somedays, you turn the temperature down in what situations should I turn thetemperature down? What other inputs (features) should I consider?”

Using the techniques herein, a smart voice device may also be able tolearn things it otherwise may not be able to. For example, if the smartvoice device is looking for common patterns in any of the aforementionedactions or purchases and the entropy drops below a certain threshold, itcan ask the person if it should take on a particular action oradditional autonomy without prompting, such as “It looks like you'renormally changing the thermostat to colder on days when you have yourexercise class, but not on days when it is cancelled; should I do thisfrom now on and prepare the temperature to your liking?”

In some embodiments, process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may determine(e.g., based on a received 110, 510, 610, 710 request) the relatedconviction measures, such as conviction, contribution, and/or surprisalof one or more data elements (e.g., of the smart voice system) oraspects (e.g., features of the data or parameters of the model) topotentially include in the smart voice system control computer-basedreasoning model. In some embodiments, for each of the one or more smartvoice system data elements or aspects, a first and second PDMF may bedetermined 120, 520, 130, 530 (determining the PDMF is describedelsewhere herein). The surprisal for the one or more smart voice systemdata elements or aspects may be determined 140, 540 and a determinationmay be made whether to include 150 the one or more smart voice systemdata elements or aspects in the smart voice system controlcomputer-based reasoning model based on the determined surprisal. Whilethere are more sets of one or more smart voice system data elements oraspects to assess, the process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may return todetermine whether more smart voice system data elements or aspects setsshould be included. Once there are no more smart voice system dataelements or aspects to consider, the process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700can turn to causing control or controlling 160, 560, 660, 760 the smartvoice system using the smart voice system control computer-basedreasoning model.

Causing control or controlling 160, 560, 660, 760 a smart voice systemmay be accomplished by process 400. For example, if the data elementsare related to smart voice system actions, then the smart voice systemcontrol computer-based reasoning model trained on that data will controlsmart voice systems. Process 400 proceeds by receiving 410 a smart voicecomputer-based reasoning model. The process proceeds by receiving 420 acontext. The smart voice computer-based reasoning model is then used todetermine 430 an action to take. The action is then performed by thecontrol system (e.g., caused by the smart voice computer-based reasoningsystem). If there are more 450 contexts to consider, then the systemreturns to receive 410 those contexts and otherwise ceases 460. In suchembodiments, the smart voice computer-based reasoning model may be usedto control a smart voice system. The chosen actions are then performedby a control system.

Control of Federated Devices

The process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may also be applied in the contextof federated devices in a system. For example, combining multiple inputsand forms of analysis, the techniques herein can recognize if there issomething that should trigger action based on the state of the federateddevices. For example, if the training data includes actions normallytaken and/or statuses of federated devices, then an action to take couldbe an often-taken action in the certain (or related contexts). Forexample, in the context of a smart home with interconnected heating,cooling, appliances, lights, locks, etc., the training data could bewhat a particular user does at certain times of day and/or in particularsequences. For example, if, in a house, the lights in the kitchen arenormally turned off after the stove has been off for over an hour andthe dishwasher has been started, then when that context again occurs,but the kitchen light has not been turned off, the computer-basedreasoning system may cause an action to be taken in the smart homefederated systems, such as prompting (e.g., audio) whether the user ofthe system would like the kitchen lights to be turned off. As anotherexample, training data may indicate that a user sets the house alarm andlocks the door upon leaving the house (e.g., as detected via goefence).If the user leaves the geofenced location of the house and has not yetlocked the door and/or set the alarm, the computer-based reasoningsystem may cause performance of an action such as inquiring whether itshould lock the door and/or set an alarm. As yet another example, in thesecurity context, the control may be for turning on/off cameras, orenact other security measures, such as sounding alarms, locking doors,or even releasing drones and the like. Training data may includeprevious logs and sensor data, door or window alarm data, time of day,security footage, etc. and when security measure were (or should havebeen) taken. For example, a context such as particular window alarm datafor a particular basement window coupled with other data may beassociated with an action of sounding an alarm, and when a contextoccurs related to that context, an alarm may be sounded.

In some embodiments, process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may determine(e.g., based on a received 110, 510, 610, 710 request) the relatedconviction measures, such as conviction, contribution, and/or surprisalof one or more data elements or aspects of the federated device controlsystem for potential inclusion in the federated device controlcomputer-based reasoning model. In some embodiments, for each of the oneor more federated device control system data elements or aspects, afirst and second PDMF may be determined 120, 130, 520, 530 (determiningthe PDMF is described elsewhere herein). The surprisal for the one ormore federated device control system data elements may be determined140, 540 and a determination may be made whether to select or include150, 550 the one or more federated device control system data elementsin the federated device control computer-based reasoning model based onthe determined surprisal. While there are more sets of one or morefederated device control system data elements or aspects to assess, theprocess 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may return to determine whether morefederated device control system data elements or aspect sets should beincluded. Once there are no more federated device control system dataelements or aspects to consider, the process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700can turn to causing control or controlling 160, 560, 660, 760 thefederated device control system using the federated device controlcomputer-based reasoning model.

Causing control or controlling 160, 560, 660, 760 a federated devicecontrol system may be accomplished by process 400. For example, if thedata elements are related to smart voice system actions, then thefederated device control computer-based reasoning model trained on thatdata will control federated device control system. Process 400 proceedsby receiving 410 a federated device control computer-based reasoningmodel. The process proceeds by receiving 420 a context. The federateddevice control computer-based reasoning model is then used to determine430 an action to take. The action is then performed by the controlsystem (e.g., caused by the federated device control computer-basedreasoning system). If there are more 450 contexts to consider, then thesystem returns to receive 410 those contexts and otherwise ceases 460.In such embodiments, the federated device control computer-basedreasoning model may be used to control federated devices. The chosenactions are then performed by a control system.

Control and Automation of Experiments

The process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may also be used in the context ofcontrol systems for laboratory experiments. For example, many labexperiments today, especially in the biological and life sciences, butalso in materials science and others, yield combinatorial increases, interms of numbers, of possibilities and results. The fields of design ofexperiment, as well as many combinatorial search and explorationtechniques are currently combined with statistical analysis. However,entropy-based techniques such as those herein can be used to guide asearch for knowledge, especially if combined with utility functions.Automated lab experiments may have actuators and may put differentchemicals, samples, or parts in different combinations and put themunder different circumstances. Using entropy to guide the machinesenables them to hone in on learning how the system under study respondsto different scenarios, and, for example, searching areas of greatestuncertainty. Conceptually speaking, when the surprisal is combined witha value function, especially in a multiplicative fashion, then thecombination is a powerful information theoretic take on the classicexploration vs exploitation trade-offs that are made in search processesfrom artificial intelligence to science to engineering. Additionally,such a system can be made to automate experiments where it can predictthe most effective approach, homing in on the best possible, predictableoutcomes for a specific knowledge base. Further, like in the otherembodiments discussed herein, it could indicate (e.g., raise alarms) tohuman operators when the results are anomalous, or even tell whichfeatures being measured are most useful (so that they can beappropriately measured) or when measurements are not sufficient tocharacterize the outcomes. If the system has multiple kinds of sensorsthat have “costs” (e.g., monetary, time, computation, etc.) or cannot beall activated simultaneously, the feature entropies could be used toactivate or deactivate the sensors to reduce costs or improve thedistinguishability of the experimental results.

In some embodiments, process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may determine(e.g., based on a received 110, 510, 610, 710 request) the relatedconviction measures, such as conviction, contribution, and/or surprisalof one or more data elements or aspects of the experiment controlsystem. In some embodiments, for each of the one or more experimentcontrol system date elements (or aspects), a first and second PDMF maybe determined 120, 130, 520, 530 (determining the PDMF is describedelsewhere herein). The surprisal for the one or more experiment controlsystem data elements or aspects may be determined 140, 540 and adetermination may be made whether to select or include 150, 550 the oneor more experiment control system data elements or aspects in experimentcontrol computer-based reasoning model based on the determinedsurprisal. While there are more sets of one or more experiment controlsystem data elements or aspects to assess, the process 100, 500, 600,and/or 700 may return to determine whether more experiment controlsystem data elements or aspects sets should be included. Once there areno more experiment control system data elements or aspects to consider,the process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 can turn to causing control orcontrolling 160, 560, 660, 760 the experiment control system using theexperiment control computer-based reasoning model.

Causing control or controlling 160, 560, 660, 760 an experiment controlsystem may be accomplished by process 400. For example, if the dataelements are related to smart voice system actions, then the experimentcontrol computer-based reasoning model trained on that data will controlexperiment control system. Process 400 proceeds by receiving 410 anexperiment control computer-based reasoning model. The process proceedsby receiving 420 a context. The experiment control computer-basedreasoning model is then used to determine 430 an action to take. Theaction is then performed by the control system (e.g., caused by theexperiment control computer-based reasoning system). If there are more450 contexts to consider, then the system returns to receive 410 thosecontexts and otherwise ceases 460. In such embodiments, the experimentcontrol computer-based reasoning model may be used to controlexperiment. The chosen actions are then performed by a control system.

Control of Energy Transfer Systems

The process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may also be applied in the contextof control systems for energy transfer. For example, a building may havenumerous energy sources, including solar, wind, grid-based electrical,batteries, on-site generation (e.g., by diesel or gas), etc. and mayhave many operations it can perform, including manufacturing,computation, temperature control, etc. The techniques herein may be usedto control when certain types of energy are used and when certain energyconsuming processes are engaged. For example, on sunny days,roof-mounted solar cells may provide enough low-cost power thatgrid-based electrical power is discontinued during a particular timeperiod while costly manufacturing processes are engaged. On windy, rainydays, the overhead of running solar panels may overshadow the energyprovided, but power purchased from a wind-generation farm may be cheap,and only essential energy consuming manufacturing processes andmaintenance processes are performed.

In some embodiments, process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may determine(e.g., based on a received 110, 510, 610, 710 request) the relatedconviction measures, such as conviction, contribution, and/or surprisalof one or more data elements or aspects of the energy transfer system.In some embodiments, for each of the one or more energy transfer systemdata elements or aspects, a first and second PDMF may be determined 120,130, 520, 530 (determining the PDMF is described elsewhere herein). Thesurprisal for the one or more energy transfer system data elements oraspects may be determined 140, 540 and a determination may be madewhether to select or include 150, 550 the one or more energy transfersystem data elements or aspects in energy control computer-basedreasoning model based on the determined surprisal. While there are moresets of one or more energy transfer system data elements or aspects toassess, the process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 may return to determinewhether more energy transfer system data elements or aspects should beincluded. Once there are no more energy transfer system data elements oraspects to consider, the process 100, 500, 600, and/or 700 can turn tocausing control or controlling 160, 560, 660, 760 the energy transfersystem using the energy control computer-based reasoning model.

Causing control or controlling 160, 560, 660, 760 an energy transfersystem may be accomplished by process 400. For example, if the dataelements are related to smart voice system actions, then the energycontrol computer-based reasoning model trained on that data will controlenergy transfer system. Process 400 proceeds by receiving 410 an energycontrol computer-based reasoning model. The process proceeds byreceiving 420 a context. The energy control computer-based reasoningmodel is then used to determine 430 an action to take. The action isthen performed by the control system (e.g., caused by the energy controlcomputer-based reasoning system). If there are more 450 contexts toconsider, then the system returns to receive 410 those contexts andotherwise ceases 460. In such embodiments, the energy controlcomputer-based reasoning model may be used to control energy. The chosenactions are then performed by a control system.

Example Control Hierarchies

In some embodiments, the technique herein may use a control hierarchy tocontrol systems and/or cause actions to be taken (e.g., as part ofcontrolling 160 in FIG. 1). There are numerous example controlhierarchies and many types of systems to control, and hierarchy forvehicle control is presented below. In some embodiments, only a portionof this control hierarchy is used. It is also possible to add levels to(or remove levels from) the control hierarchy.

An example control hierarchy for controlling a vehicle could be:

-   -   Primitive Layer—Active vehicle abilities (accelerate,        decelerate), lateral, elevation, and orientation movements to        control basic vehicle navigation    -   Behavior Layer—Programmed vehicle behaviors which prioritize        received actions and directives and prioritize the behaviors in        the action.    -   Unit Layer—Receives orders from command layer, issues        moves/directives to the behavior layer.    -   Command Layers (hierarchical)—Receives orders and gives orders        to elements under its command, which may be another command        layer or unit layer.        Example Cases, Data Elements, Contexts, and Operational        Situations

In some embodiments, the cases (sometimes referred to as data cases ortraining data cases) or data elements may include context data andaction data in context-action pairs. In some embodiments, case mayinclude data elements and/or vice-versa. Further, cases and/or dataelements may relate to control of a vehicle. For example, context datamay include data related to the operation of the vehicle, including theenvironment in which it is operating, and the actions taken may be ofany granularity. Consider an example of data collected while a driver,Alicia, drives around a city. The collected data could be context andaction data (each of which may be a “feature”) where the actions takencan include high-level actions (e.g., drive to next intersection, exitthe highway, take surface roads, etc.), mid-level actions (e.g., turnleft, turn right, change lanes) and/or low-level actions (e.g.,accelerate, decelerate, etc.). The contexts can include any informationrelated to the vehicle (e.g. time until impact with closest object(s),speed, course heading, breaking distances, vehicle weight, etc.), thedriver (pupillary dilation, heart rate, attentiveness, hand position,foot position, etc.), the environment (speed limit and other local rulesof the road, weather, visibility, road surface information, bothtransient such as moisture level as well as more permanent, such aspavement levelness, existence of potholes, etc.), traffic (congestion,time to a waypoint, time to destination, availability of alternateroutes, etc.), and the like. These input data (e.g., context-actionpairs for training a context-based reasoning system or input trainingcontexts with outcome actions for training a machine learning system)can be saved and later used to help control a compatible vehicle in acompatible operational situation. The operational situation of thevehicle may include any relevant data related to the operation of thevehicle. In some embodiments, the operational situation may relate tooperation of vehicles by particular individuals, in particulargeographies, at particular times, and in particular conditions. Forexample, the operational situation may refer to a particular driver(e.g., Alicia or Carole). Alicia may be considered a cautious cardriver, and Carole a faster driver. As noted above, and in particular,when approaching a stop sign, Carole may coast in and then brake at thelast moment, while Alicia may slow down earlier and roll in. As anotherexample of an operational situation, Bob may be considered the “bestpilot” for a fleet of helicopters, and therefore his context and actionsmay be used for controlling self-flying helicopters.

In some embodiments, the operational situation may relate to the localein which the vehicle is operating. The locale may be a geographic areaof any size or type, and may be determined by systems that utilizemachine learning. For example, an operational situation may be “highwaydriving” while another is “side street driving”. An operationalsituation may be related to an area, neighborhood, city, region, state,country, etc. For example, one operational situation may relate todriving in Raleigh, N.C. and another may be driving in Pittsburgh, Pa.An operational situation may relate to safe or legal driving speeds. Forexample, one operational situation may be related to roads withforty-five miles per hour speed limits, and another may relate to turnswith a recommended speed of 20 miles per hour. The operational situationmay also include aspects of the environment such as road congestion,weather or road conditions, time of day, etc. The operational situationmay also include passenger information, such as whether to hurry (e.g.,drive faster), whether to drive smoothly, technique for approaching stopsigns, red lights, other objects, what relative velocity to take turns,etc. The operational situation may also include cargo information, suchas weight, hazardousness, value, fragility of the cargo, temperaturesensitivity, handling instructions, etc.

In some embodiments, the context and action may include vehiclemaintenance information. The context may include information for timingand/or wear-related information for individual or sets of components.For example, the context may include information on the timing anddistance since the last change of each fluid, each belt, each tire (andpossibly when each was rotated), the electrical system, interior andexterior materials (such as exterior paint, interior cushions, passengerentertainment systems, etc.), communication systems, sensors (such asspeed sensors, tire pressure monitors, fuel gauges, compasses, globalpositioning systems (GPS), RADARs, LiDARs, cameras, barometers, thermalsensors, accelerometers, strain gauges, noise/sound measurement systems,etc.), the engine(s), structural components of the vehicle (wings,blades, struts, shocks, frame, hull, etc.), and the like. The actiontaken may include inspection, preventative maintenance, and/or a failureof any of these components. As discussed elsewhere herein, havingcontext and actions related to maintenance may allow the techniques topredict when issues will occur with future vehicles and/or suggestmaintenance. For example, the context of an automobile may include thedistance traveled since the timing belt was last replaced. The actionassociated with the context may include inspection, preventativereplacement, and/or failure of the timing belt. Further, as describedelsewhere herein, the contexts and actions may be collected for multipleoperators and/or vehicles. As such, the timing of inspection,preventative maintenance and/or failure for multiple automobiles may bedetermined and later used for predictions and messaging.

Causing performance of an identified action can include sending a signalto a real car, to a simulator of a car, to a system or device incommunication with either, etc. Further, the action to be caused can besimulated/predicted without showing graphics, etc. For example, thetechniques might cause performance of actions in the manner thatincludes, determining what action would be take, and determining whetherthat result would be anomalous, and performing the techniques hereinbased on the determination that such state would be anomalous based onthat determination, all without actually generating the graphics andother characteristics needed for displaying the results needed in agraphical simulator (e.g., a graphical simulator might be similar to acomputer game).

Example Systems for Entropy-Based Techniques for Creation ofWell-Balanced Computer Based Reasoning Systems

FIG. 2 depicts a block diagram of a system for evolving computer-basedreasoning systems. System 200 includes a number of elements connected bya communicative coupling or network 290. Examples of communicativecoupling and networks are described elsewhere herein. In someembodiments, the processes 100, 400, 500, 600, and/or 700 of FIG. 1 mayrun on the system 200 of FIG. 2 and/or the hardware 300 of FIG. 3. Forexample, the receiving 110 and determining 120-150 of FIG. 1 may behandled at training and analysis system 210. The resultant set(s) ofdata elements might be stored in communicatively coupled storage 230 or240. The control system 220 may control 160 one or more physicalsystems.

Each of training and analysis system 210 and control system 220 may runon a single computing device, multiple computing devices, in adistributed manner across a network, on one or more virtual machines,which themselves run on one or more computing devices. In someembodiments, training and analysis system 210 and control system 220 aredistinct sets of processes running on distinct sets of computingdevices. In other embodiments, training and analysis system 210 andcontrol system 220 are intertwined or share processes or functionsand/or run on the same computing devices. In some embodiments, storage230 and 240 are communicatively coupled to training and analysis system210 and control system 220 via a network 290 or other connection.Storage 230 and 240 may also be part of or integrated with training andanalysis system 210 and/or control system 220 via a network 290 or otherconnection.

As discussed herein the various aspects or embodiments of process 100,400, 500, 600, and/or 700 may run in parallel, in conjunction, together,or one process may be a subprocess of another. Further, any of theprocesses may run on the systems or hardware discussed herein.

Hardware Overview

According to some embodiments, the techniques described herein areimplemented by one or more special-purpose computing devices. Thespecial-purpose computing devices may be hard-wired to perform thetechniques, or may include digital electronic devices such as one ormore application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) or fieldprogrammable gate arrays (FPGAs) that are persistently programmed toperform the techniques, or may include one or more general purposehardware processors programmed to perform the techniques pursuant toprogram instructions in firmware, memory, other storage, or acombination. Such special-purpose computing devices may also combinecustom hard-wired logic, ASICs, or FPGAs with custom programming toaccomplish the techniques. The special-purpose computing devices may bedesktop computer systems, portable computer systems, handheld devices,networking devices or any other device that incorporates hard-wiredand/or program logic to implement the techniques.

For example, FIG. 3 is a block diagram that illustrates a computersystem 300 upon which an embodiment of the invention may be implemented.Computer system 300 includes a bus 302 or other communication mechanismfor communicating information, and a hardware processor 304 coupled withbus 302 for processing information. Hardware processor 304 may be, forexample, a general purpose microprocessor.

Computer system 300 also includes a main memory 306, such as a randomaccess memory (RAM) or other dynamic storage device, coupled to bus 302for storing information and instructions to be executed by processor304. Main memory 306 also may be used for storing temporary variables orother intermediate information during execution of instructions to beexecuted by processor 304. Such instructions, when stored innon-transitory storage media accessible to processor 304, rendercomputer system 300 into a special-purpose machine that is customized toperform the operations specified in the instructions.

Computer system 300 further includes a read only memory (ROM) 308 orother static storage device coupled to bus 302 for storing staticinformation and instructions for processor 304. A storage device 310,such as a magnetic disk, optical disk, or solid-state drive is providedand coupled to bus 302 for storing information and instructions.

Computer system 300 may be coupled via bus 302 to a display 312, such asan OLED, LED or cathode ray tube (CRT), for displaying information to acomputer user. An input device 314, including alphanumeric and otherkeys, is coupled to bus 302 for communicating information and commandselections to processor 304. Another type of user input device is cursorcontrol 316, such as a mouse, a trackball, or cursor direction keys forcommunicating direction information and command selections to processor304 and for controlling cursor movement on display 312. This inputdevice typically has two degrees of freedom in two axes, a first axis(e.g., x) and a second axis (e.g., y), that allows the device to specifypositions in a plane. The input device 314 may also have multiple inputmodalities, such as multiple 2-axes controllers, and/or input buttons orkeyboard. This allows a user to input along more than two dimensionssimultaneously and/or control the input of more than one type of action.

Computer system 300 may implement the techniques described herein usingcustomized hard-wired logic, one or more ASICs or FPGAs, firmware and/orprogram logic which in combination with the computer system causes orprograms computer system 300 to be a special-purpose machine. Accordingto some embodiments, the techniques herein are performed by computersystem 300 in response to processor 304 executing one or more sequencesof one or more instructions contained in main memory 306. Suchinstructions may be read into main memory 306 from another storagemedium, such as storage device 310. Execution of the sequences ofinstructions contained in main memory 306 causes processor 304 toperform the process steps described herein. In alternative embodiments,hard-wired circuitry may be used in place of or in combination withsoftware instructions.

The term “storage media” as used herein refers to any non-transitorymedia that store data and/or instructions that cause a machine tooperate in a specific fashion. Such storage media may comprisenon-volatile media and/or volatile media. Non-volatile media includes,for example, optical disks, magnetic disks, or solid-state drives, suchas storage device 310. Volatile media includes dynamic memory, such asmain memory 306. Common forms of storage media include, for example, afloppy disk, a flexible disk, hard disk, solid-state drive, magnetictape, or any other magnetic data storage medium, a CD-ROM, any otheroptical data storage medium, any physical medium with patterns of holes,a RAM, a PROM, and EPROM, a FLASH-EPROM, NVRAM, any other memory chip orcartridge.

Storage media is distinct from but may be used in conjunction withtransmission media. Transmission media participates in transferringinformation between storage media. For example, transmission mediaincludes coaxial cables, copper wire and fiber optics, including thewires that comprise bus 302. Transmission media can also take the formof acoustic or light waves, such as those generated during radio-waveand infra-red data communications.

Various forms of media may be involved in carrying one or more sequencesof one or more instructions to processor 304 for execution. For example,the instructions may initially be carried on a magnetic disk orsolid-state drive of a remote computer. The remote computer can load theinstructions into its dynamic memory and send the instructions over atelephone line using a modem. A modem local to computer system 300 canreceive the data on the telephone line and use an infra-red transmitterto convert the data to an infra-red signal. An infra-red detector canreceive the data carried in the infra-red signal and appropriatecircuitry can place the data on bus 302. Bus 302 carries the data tomain memory 306, from which processor 304 retrieves and executes theinstructions. The instructions received by main memory 306 mayoptionally be stored on storage device 310 either before or afterexecution by processor 304.

Computer system 300 also includes a communication interface 318 coupledto bus 302. Communication interface 318 provides a two-way datacommunication coupling to a network link 320 that is connected to alocal network 322. For example, communication interface 318 may be anintegrated services digital network (ISDN) card, cable modem, satellitemodem, or a modem to provide a data communication connection to acorresponding type of telephone line. As another example, communicationinterface 318 may be a local area network (LAN) card to provide a datacommunication connection to a compatible LAN. Wireless links may also beimplemented. In any such implementation, communication interface 318sends and receives electrical, electromagnetic or optical signals thatcarry digital data streams representing various types of information.Such a wireless link could be a Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE),802.11 WiFi connection, or the like.

Network link 320 typically provides data communication through one ormore networks to other data devices. For example, network link 320 mayprovide a connection through local network 322 to a host computer 324 orto data equipment operated by an Internet Service Provider (ISP) 326.ISP 326 in turn provides data communication services through the worldwide packet data communication network now commonly referred to as the“Internet” 328. Local network 322 and Internet 328 both use electrical,electromagnetic or optical signals that carry digital data streams. Thesignals through the various networks and the signals on network link 320and through communication interface 318, which carry the digital data toand from computer system 300, are example forms of transmission media.

Computer system 300 can send messages and receive data, includingprogram code, through the network(s), network link 320 and communicationinterface 318. In the Internet example, a server 330 might transmit arequested code for an application program through Internet 328, ISP 326,local network 322 and communication interface 318.

The received code may be executed by processor 304 as it is received,and/or stored in storage device 310, or other non-volatile storage forlater execution.

In the foregoing specification, embodiments of the invention have beendescribed with reference to numerous specific details that may vary fromimplementation to implementation. The specification and drawings are,accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictivesense. The sole and exclusive indicator of the scope of the invention,and what is intended by the applicants to be the scope of the invention,is the literal and equivalent scope of the set of claims that issue fromthis application, in the specific form in which such claims issue,including any subsequent correction.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method comprising: receiving, at a training andanalysis system, a request to determine whether to use one or moreparticular features of a computer-based reasoning model, wherein thetraining and analysis system executes on one or more computing devices,and is configured to execute training and analysis instructions;determining, at the training and analysis system, one or more featureconviction measures for the one or more particular features of thecomputer-based reasoning model; wherein: determining the one or morefeature conviction measures for the one or more particular featurescomprises determining one of feature prediction conviction or featureprediction contribution for the one or more particular features, featureprediction contribution is a measure of the relative information in themodel with a given feature and without the given feature, and featureprediction conviction is a measure of expected information for the givenfeature; determine whether the one or more feature conviction measuresfor the one or more particular features meets inclusivity conditions; inresponse to determining that the one or more feature conviction measuresfor the one or more particular features meets the inclusivityconditions, including the one or more particular features in thecomputer-based reasoning model; in response to determining that the oneor more feature conviction measures meet the inclusivity conditions:including the one or more particular features in the computer-basedreasoning model when the inclusivity conditions comprise an inclusioncondition; excluding the one or more particular features in thecomputer-based reasoning model when the inclusivity conditions comprisean exclusion condition; causing, with a control system, control of acontrollable system with the computer-based reasoning model, whereindetermining the one or more feature conviction measures for the one ormore particular features comprises determining the feature predictionconviction and a familiarity conviction for the one or more particularfeatures, wherein determining whether the one or more feature convictionmeasures for the one or more particular features meets the inclusivityconditions comprises determining whether the feature predictionconviction for the one or more particular features is above a particularthreshold and whether the familiarity conviction is below a certainthreshold, wherein the inclusivity conditions comprise an exclusioncondition, wherein the method is performed on one or more computingdevices.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more particularfeatures relate to at least one label on at least one training image;wherein causing control of the controllable system comprises causingcontrol of an imagining system that identifies elements of an imageusing the computer-based reasoning model by: receiving an input imagefor labelling; determining one or more labels for the input image basedon the image and the computer-based reasoning model; labelling the inputimage based on the one or more determined labels.
 3. The method of claim1, wherein causing control of the controllable system comprises causingcontrol of a vehicle using the computer-based reasoning model by:receiving a current context for the vehicle, wherein the vehicle can becontrolled by the control system; determining an action to take for thevehicle based on the current context for the vehicle and thecomputer-based reasoning model; causing the vehicle to perform thedetermined action.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the oneor more feature conviction measures for the one or more particularfeatures comprises determining the feature prediction contribution forthe one or more particular features and wherein determining whether theone or more feature conviction measures for the one or more particularfeatures meets the inclusivity conditions comprises determining whetherthe feature prediction contribution for the one or more particularfeatures is above a particular threshold; wherein the inclusivityconditions comprise the inclusion condition.
 5. The method of claim 1,wherein determining the one or more feature conviction measures for theone or more particular features comprises determining a targeted featureconviction for the one or more particular features and whereindetermining whether the one or more feature conviction measures for theone or more particular features meets the inclusivity conditionscomprises determining whether the targeted feature conviction for theone or more particular features is below a particular threshold; whereinthe inclusivity conditions comprise an exclusion condition.
 6. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the inclusivity conditions comprise anexclusion condition and the method further comprises: receiving arequest for model reduction of the computer-based reasoning model;determining one or more feature conviction measures for each feature inthe one or more particular features, wherein the one or more particularfeatures comprise all of features in the computer-based reasoning model;determining a subset of the one or more particular features based atleast in part on the exclusion condition and the one or more featureconviction measures for each feature in the one or more particularfeatures, wherein the subset contains only features from the one or moreparticular features for which the feature conviction measures meet theexclusion condition; removing the one or more particular features fromthe computer-based reasoning model.
 7. The method of claim 1, whereinthe inclusivity conditions comprise the inclusion condition and themethod further comprises: receiving a request for model reduction of thecomputer-based reasoning model; determining one or more featureconviction measures for each feature in the one or more particularfeatures, wherein the one or more particular features comprise all offeatures in the computer-based reasoning model; determining a subset ofthe one or more particular features based at least in part on theexclusion condition and the one or more feature conviction measures foreach feature in the one or more particular features, wherein the subsetcontains only features from the one or more particular features forwhich the feature conviction measures meet the inclusion condition;including only the subset of the one or more particular features in thecomputer-based reasoning model.
 8. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising: initially receiving the one or more particular features aspart of training for the computer-based reasoning model; in response todetermining that the one or more feature conviction measures for the oneor more particular features meet the inclusion condition, sending anindication to continue to collect the one or more particular features aspart of the training; in response to determining that the one or morefeature conviction measures for the one or more particular featuresmeets an exclusion condition, sending an indication to no longer collectthe one or more particular features.
 9. A system for performing amachine-executed operation involving instructions, wherein saidinstructions are instructions which, when executed by one or morecomputing devices, cause performance of a process comprising: receiving,at a training and analysis system, a request to determine whether to useone or more particular features of a computer-based reasoning model,wherein the training and analysis system executes on one or morecomputing devices, and is configured to execute training and analysisinstructions; determining, at the training and analysis system, one ormore feature conviction measures for the one or more particular featuresof the computer-based reasoning model, wherein: determining the one ormore feature conviction measures for the one or more particular featurescomprises determining one of feature prediction conviction or featureprediction contribution for the one or more particular features, featureprediction contribution is a measure of the relative information in themodel with a given feature and without the given feature, and featureprediction conviction is a measure of expected information for the givenfeature; determine whether the one or more feature conviction measuresfor the one or more particular features meets inclusivity conditions; inresponse to determining that the one or more feature conviction measuresfor the one or more particular features meets the inclusivityconditions, including the one or more particular features in thecomputer-based reasoning model; in response to determining that the oneor more feature conviction measures meet the inclusivity conditions:including the one or more particular features in the computer-basedreasoning model when the inclusivity conditions comprise an inclusioncondition; excluding the one or more particular features in thecomputer-based reasoning model when the inclusivity conditions comprisean exclusion condition; causing, with a control system, control of acontrollable system with the computer-based reasoning model, whereindetermining the one or more feature conviction measures for the one ormore particular features comprises determining the feature predictionconviction and a familiarity conviction for the one or more particularfeatures, wherein determining whether the one or more feature convictionmeasures for the one or more particular features meets the inclusivityconditions comprises determining whether the feature predictionconviction for the one or more particular features is above a particularthreshold and whether the familiarity conviction is below a certainthreshold, wherein the inclusivity conditions comprise an exclusioncondition.
 10. The system of claim 9, the process further comprising:wherein the one or more particular features relate to at least one labelon at least one training image; wherein causing control of thecontrollable system comprises causing control of an imagining systemthat identifies elements of an image using the computer-based reasoningmodel by: receiving an input image for labelling; determining one ormore labels for the input image based on the image and thecomputer-based reasoning model; labelling the input image based on theone or more determined labels.
 11. The system of claim 9, whereincausing control of the controllable system comprises causing control ofa vehicle using the computer-based reasoning model by: receiving acurrent context for the vehicle, wherein the vehicle can be controlledby the control system; determining an action to take for the vehiclebased on the current context for the vehicle and the computer-basedreasoning model; causing the vehicle to perform the determined action.12. The system of claim 9, wherein determining the one or more featureconviction measures for the one or more particular features comprisesdetermining the feature prediction contribution for the one or moreparticular features and wherein determining whether the one or morefeature conviction measures for the one or more particular featuresmeets the inclusivity conditions comprises determining whether thefeature prediction contribution for the one or more particular featuresis above a particular threshold; wherein the inclusivity conditionscomprise the inclusion condition.
 13. The system of claim 9, whereindetermining the one or more feature conviction measures for the one ormore particular features comprises determining a targeted featureconviction for the one or more particular features and whereindetermining whether the one or more feature conviction measures for theone or more particular features meets the inclusivity conditionscomprises determining whether the targeted feature conviction for theone or more particular features is below a particular threshold; whereinthe inclusivity conditions comprise an exclusion condition.
 14. Thesystem of claim 9, wherein the inclusivity conditions comprise anexclusion condition and the process further comprises: receiving arequest for model reduction of the computer-based reasoning model;determining one or more feature conviction measures for each feature inthe one or more particular features, wherein the one or more particularfeatures comprise all of features in the computer-based reasoning model;determining a subset of the one or more particular features based atleast in part on the exclusion condition and the one or more featureconviction measures for each feature in the one or more particularfeatures, wherein the subset contains only features from the one or moreparticular features for which the feature conviction measures meet theexclusion condition; removing the one or more particular features fromthe computer-based reasoning model.
 15. The system of claim 9, whereinthe inclusivity conditions comprise the inclusion condition and theprocess further comprises: receiving a request for model reduction ofthe computer-based reasoning model; determining one or more featureconviction measures for each feature in the one or more particularfeatures, wherein the one or more particular features comprise all offeatures in the computer-based reasoning model; determining a subset ofthe one or more particular features based at least in part on theexclusion condition and the one or more feature conviction measures foreach feature in the one or more particular features, wherein the subsetcontains only features from the one or more particular features forwhich the feature conviction measures meet the inclusion condition;including only the subset of the one or more particular features in thecomputer-based reasoning model.
 16. The system of claim 9, the processfurther comprising: initially receiving the one or more particularfeatures as part of training for the computer-based reasoning model; inresponse to determining that the one or more feature conviction measuresfor the one or more particular features meet the inclusion condition,sending an indication to continue to collect the one or more particularfeatures as part of the training; in response to determining that theone or more feature conviction measures for the one or more particularfeatures meets an exclusion condition, sending an indication to nolonger collect the one or more particular features.
 17. A non-transitorycomputer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed byone or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devicesto perform a process of: receiving; at a training and analysis system, arequest to determine whether to use one or more particular features of acomputer-based reasoning model, wherein the training and analysis systemexecutes on one or more computing devices, and is configured to executetraining and analysis instructions; determining, at the training andanalysis system, one or more feature conviction measures for the one ormore particular features of the computer-based reasoning model, wherein:determining the one or more feature conviction measures for the one ormore particular features comprises determining one of feature predictionconviction or feature prediction contribution for the one or moreparticular features, feature prediction contribution is a measure of therelative information in the model with a given feature and without thegiven feature, and feature prediction conviction is a measure ofexpected information for the given feature; determine whether the one ormore feature conviction measures for the one or more particular featuresmeets inclusivity conditions; in response to determining that the one ormore feature conviction measures for the one or more particular featuresmeets the inclusivity conditions, including the one or more particularfeatures in the computer-based reasoning model; in response todetermining that the one or more feature conviction measures meet theinclusivity conditions: including the one or more particular features inthe computer-based reasoning model when the inclusivity conditionscomprise an inclusion condition; excluding the one or more particularfeatures in the computer-based reasoning model when the inclusivityconditions comprise an exclusion condition; causing, with a controlsystem, control of a controllable system with the computer-basedreasoning model, wherein determining the one or more feature convictionmeasures for the one or more particular features comprises determiningthe feature prediction conviction and a familiarity conviction for theone or more particular features and wherein determining whether the oneor more feature conviction measures for the one or more particularfeatures meets the inclusivity conditions comprises determining whetherthe feature prediction conviction for the one or more particularfeatures is above a particular threshold and whether the familiarityconviction is below a certain threshold; wherein the inclusivityconditions comprise an exclusion condition.
 18. The non-transitorycomputer readable medium of claim 17, the process further comprisingwherein the one or more particular features relate to at least one labelon at least one training image; wherein causing control of thecontrollable system comprises causing control of an imagining systemthat identifies elements of an image using the computer-based reasoningmodel by: receiving an input image for labelling; determining one ormore labels for the input image based on the image and thecomputer-based reasoning model; labelling the input image based on theone or more determined labels.
 19. The non-transitory computer readablemedium of claim 17, wherein causing control of the controllable systemcomprises causing control of a vehicle using the computer-basedreasoning model by: receiving a current context for the vehicle, whereinthe vehicle can be controlled by the control system; determining anaction to take for the vehicle based on the current context for thevehicle and the computer-based reasoning model; causing the vehicle toperform the determined action.
 20. The non-transitory computer readablemedium of claim 17, wherein determining the one or more featureconviction measures for the one or more particular features comprisesdetermining the feature prediction contribution for the one or moreparticular features and wherein determining whether the one or morefeature conviction measures for the one or more particular featuresmeets the inclusivity conditions comprises determining whether thefeature prediction contribution for the one or more particular featuresis above a particular threshold; wherein the inclusivity conditionscomprise the inclusion condition.
 21. The non-transitory computerreadable medium of claim 17, wherein the inclusivity conditions comprisean exclusion condition and the process further comprises: receiving arequest for model reduction of the computer-based reasoning model;determining one or more feature conviction measures for each feature inthe one or more particular features, wherein the one or more particularfeatures comprise all of features in the computer-based reasoning model;determining a subset of the one or more particular features based atleast in part on the exclusion condition and the one or more featureconviction measures for each feature in the one or more particularfeatures, wherein the subset contains only features from the one or moreparticular features for which the feature conviction measures meet theexclusion condition; removing the one or more particular features fromthe computer-based reasoning model.
 22. The non-transitory computerreadable medium of claim 17, wherein the inclusivity conditions comprisethe inclusion condition and the process further comprises: receiving arequest for model reduction of the computer-based reasoning model;determining one or more feature conviction measures for each feature inthe one or more particular features, wherein the one or more particularfeatures comprise all of features in the computer-based reasoning model;determining a subset of the one or more particular features based atleast in part on the exclusion condition and the one or more featureconviction measures for each feature in the one or more particularfeatures, wherein the subset contains only features from the one or moreparticular features for which the feature conviction measures meet theinclusion condition; including only the subset of the one or moreparticular features in the computer-based reasoning model.
 23. Thenon-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, the process furthercomprising: initially receiving the one or more particular features aspart of training for the computer-based reasoning model; in response todetermining that the one or more feature conviction measures for the oneor more particular features meet the inclusion condition, sending anindication to continue to collect the one or more particular features aspart of the training; in response to determining that the one or morefeature conviction measures for the one or more particular featuresmeets an exclusion condition, sending an indication to no longer collectthe one or more particular features.